2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01168.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of osteoblast spreading on microstructured dental implant surfaces and cell behaviour in an explant model of osseointegration

Abstract: The two methods provided complementary information: a rough surface of porous microstructure may enhance the rate of cell spreading. Differentiation and calcification occurred on surfaces of both rough and smooth microstructure.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
112
1
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
4
112
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that titanium surface roughness influences a number of events in the behavior of cells in the osteoblastic lineage, including spreading and proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis (Sammons et al, 2005, Zhao et al, 2006. Implant surface roughness is divided, depending on the dimension of the measured surface features into macro, micro, and nano-roughness.…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that titanium surface roughness influences a number of events in the behavior of cells in the osteoblastic lineage, including spreading and proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis (Sammons et al, 2005, Zhao et al, 2006. Implant surface roughness is divided, depending on the dimension of the measured surface features into macro, micro, and nano-roughness.…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Khlusov et al [11] reported about novel concepts of "niche-relief" and "niche-voltage" for stem cells and supposed that the average roughness in the range of 2.5-5.0 m is optimal for successful stem cells adhesion to the coating surface and their further differentiation into the bone tissue. Also, Sammons et al [12] reported that the microporous rough surfaces improved osseointegration of the implants. The change in the surface morphology, topography and thickness of these coatings under increase of the process voltage is connected with increasing of microplasma discharge intensity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It could be found that, similar to the SLA surface of famous Straumann μ implants on commercial, such IZrO 2 SLA and IAl 2 O 3 SLA surfaces owned favorable topography structures which were suitable for early osseointegration. 11,25) But shallow pits resulted from RZrO 2 sandblasting on RZrO 2 SL surfaces [ Fig. 1(e)] did not seem to be deep enough to form suitable primary roughness and were easily etched away.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%