An In-Vitro Analysis of Peri-Implant Mucosal Seal Following Photofunctionalization of Zirconia Abutment Materials

Abstract

The presence of epithelial and connective tissue attachment at the peri-implant–soft tissue region has been demonstrated to provide a biological barrier of the alveolar bone from the oral environment. This barrier can be improved via surface modification of implant abutment materials. The effect of photofunctionalization on creating a bioactive surface for the enhancement of the epithelial and connective tissue attachment of zirconia implant abutment’s peri-implant mucosal interface using organotypic model has not been investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the soft tissue seal around peri-implant mucosa and to understand the effect of photofunctionalization on the abutment materials. Three types of abutment materials were used in this study; yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), alumina-toughened zirconia, and grade 2 commercially pure titanium (CPTi) which were divided into nontreated (N-Tx) and photofunctionalized group (UV-Tx). The three-dimensional peri-implant mucosal model was constructed using primary human gingival keratinocytes and fibroblasts co-cultured on the acellular dermal membrane. The biological seal was determined through the concentration of tritiated water permeating the material–soft tissue interface. The biological seal formed by the soft tissue in the N-Tx group was significantly reduced compared to the UV-treated group (p < 0.001), with YSZ exhibiting the lowest permeability among all materials. Photofunctionalization of implant abutment materials improved the biological seal of the surrounding soft tissue peri-implant interface.

The Effect of UV Treatment on Surface Contact Angle, Fibroblast Cytotoxicity, and Proliferation with Two Types of Zirconia-Based Ceramics

“…Average surface roughness is classified into four categories: smooth, minimally rough, moderately rough, and rough [ 26 ]. In addition, there is variance in the measurement methodology for this parameter, including contact or non-contact profilometry, confocal microscopy, and SEM [ 15 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. In the present study, minimally rough surfaces (Ra < 0.5 μm) were achieved with negligible differences in roughness, allowing for the direct comparison of both materials, disregarding these parameters’ influence on the results of subsequent analyses.…”

“…Among different surface modification methods, the photofunctionalization of Zirconia-based implant abutments has increased healing potential, improved wettability, and enhanced biological seal [ 24 , 30 , 31 ]. Three main photofunctionalization methods are used based on the radiation wavelength: UV-A (100–400 nm), UV-B (290–320 nm), and UV-C (100–290 nm) (Flanagan2016.32).…”

“…Three main photofunctionalization methods are used based on the radiation wavelength: UV-A (100–400 nm), UV-B (290–320 nm), and UV-C (100–290 nm) (Flanagan2016.32). In addition, mixed protocols have been used in previous studies [ 30 ]. The irradiation times vary considerably in the literature, ranging from as little as 10 min to more than 24 h [ 15 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”

“…In addition, mixed protocols have been used in previous studies [ 30 ]. The irradiation times vary considerably in the literature, ranging from as little as 10 min to more than 24 h [ 15 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. In the current study, UV-C irradiation was used.…”

Three interfaces of the dental implant system and their clinical effects on hard and soft tissues

“…210 Nanotechnologically, photofunctionalization by ultraviolet rays, coating cell adhesive molecules including poly-L-lysine and nanoporous modification of abutment surfaces were also reported to strengthen the soft tissue seal around the abutments. 201,202,211 In one in vitro study, Yang et al showed that gingival fibroblasts proliferate more strongly on smooth or rough zirconia surfaces following ultraviolet irradiation. 212 Epithelial attachment was also improved on both the abutment surfaces with poly-L-lysine coating and with laser-induced micro-or nano-pores that were within 5 mm in diameter.…”