Effect of surface modification of zirconia on cell adhesion, metabolic activity and proliferation of human osteoblasts

Abstract

Titanium dental implants with sandblasted and/or acid-etched surfaces have shown clinical superiority in comparison to their smooth, machined counterparts, and are now state of the art. Sandblasting of finished, sintered zirconia implants, however, will damage the surface structure and affect the mechanical properties. To improve osseointegration of zirconia dental implants without impairing the original mechanical strength by crack initiation and partial phase transformation from tetragonal to monoclinic, roughening of the zirconia surface by sandblasting before the final sintering step was employed. Impact of the treatments on cellular reactions of SAOS-2 human osteoblast-like cells was investigated. Sandblasting of Yttrium-stabilized zirconia (Y-TZP) with 120 μm and 250 μm Al2O3 enhanced average roughness (Sa) from 0.28 μm to 4.1 μm and 5.72 μm, respectively. Cell adhesion of SAOS-2 osteoblasts was enhanced up to 175% on sandblasted surfaces, compared to the machined zirconia reference (100%). Metabolic activity and proliferation in the logarithmic growth phase (24-48 h) were not significantly affected. Sample surface coverage by the cells after prolonged incubation (72 h) was markedly decreased on the roughened samples, indicating a shift towards increased differentiation on these surfaces. The approach investigated here to roughen zirconia implants by sandblasting before sintering shows potential to improve the clinical performance of ceramic dental implants.

Polydopamine-induced hydroxyapatite coating facilitates hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 implant osteogenesis: an in vitro and in vivo evaluation

“…29,30 Surface roughness increased cell attachment owing to its increased protein absorption. 31 In addition, research has shown that HA has good biocompatibility and bioactivity, 32 and PDA improves the bioactive behavior of materials owing to its catecholamine structure. 33 Therefore, it was suggested that the mechanism of positive response of C3H10T1/2 cells to the HA and PDA coatings could be attributed to the change in the surface chemistry and improvement in hydrophilicity and surface roughness.…”

Two‐piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: Clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial

“…Early zirconia implants had macro‐ and microscopic surface characteristics that resulted in inferior osseointegration and removal torques, and their fracture rates were too high as well (Gahlert et al, ; Sennerby, Dasmah, Larsson, & Iverhed, ; Thoma et al, ). Following recent advances in fracture tolerance, flexural strength, and hardness (Becker et al, ; Hashim, Cionca, Courvoisier, & Mombelli, ), manufacturers seem to have overcome these issues and today recommend similar surgical and restorative protocols with zirconia as with titanium implants (Al Qahtani et al, ; Bubik et al, ).…”

Biological characterization of surface-treated dental implant materials in contact with mammalian host and bacterial cells: titanium versus zirconia

“…45,46,49 Likewise, differences in mammalian cellular growth on smooth surfaces (polished) as opposed to rougher ones (sandblasted and/or acid-etched) have been debated in the literature. [50][51][52] In particular, greater osteoblast proliferation has been observed on rougher cpTi and ZrO 2 surfaces as opposed to their smoother counterparts. 50,51 On the other hand, broblasts and preosteoblasts have been shown to grow equally well on ZrO 2 and cpTi substrates in vitro.…”

“…[50][51][52] In particular, greater osteoblast proliferation has been observed on rougher cpTi and ZrO 2 surfaces as opposed to their smoother counterparts. 50,51 On the other hand, broblasts and preosteoblasts have been shown to grow equally well on ZrO 2 and cpTi substrates in vitro. [52][53][54][55] Based on the ndings of these previous studies, the trends in terms of oral bacterial adhesion and mammalian cellular proliferation on various surface-modied cpTi and ZrO 2 appear to be inconclusive.…”