Experimental implantoplasty outcomes correlate with fibroblast growth in vitro

Abstract

Background: Implantoplasty is an option in peri-implantitis treatment, but little is known about the effect on the soft tissue. The aim of the study was to characterize surface roughness following experimental implantoplasty and to examine its effect on human fibroblast growth and secretion of selected proteins.Methods: Titanium grade IV coins were mechanically treated with six different rotating bur sequences; diamond burs or carbide burs alone, or followed by either Arkansas stone bur or silicone burs. Machined and rough-surface sandblasted, acid-etched (SLA) coins were used as control. The surface topography was characterized by scanning electron microscope and profilometer. Human gingival fibroblasts from two donors were cultured on the coins to quantify the effect on cell morphology, growth, and protein secretion by confocal microscopy and multiplex immunoassay. Results: All surface roughness parameters were lower for the surfaces treated with experimental implantoplasty than for the SLA surface, and the sequence of carbide burs followed by silicone burs rendered the least rough surface of the test groups. The implantoplasty procedures changed the elemental composition of the titanium surface. High surface roughness showed a weak to moderate negative correlation to fibroblast growth, but induced a higher secretion of VEGF, IL-6 and MCP-3 to the cell medium compared to the least rough surfaces of the test groups. At day 30 fibronectin levels were higher in the SLA group. Conclusions: The surface roughness following implantoplasty demonstrated a weak to moderate negative correlation with the growth of fibroblasts. The addition of Arkansas stone and silicon burs to the experimental implantoplasty bur protocol rendered an initial increase in fibroblast growth. Implantoplasty altered the elemental composition of the titanium surface, and had an effect on the fibroblast cytokine secretion and fibronectin levels.

Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study

“…In the present study, surface roughness values after all IP procedures were higher than those of machined surface and, with the exception of SONIC, lower as compared to Osseotite ® . In agreement with other studies (Beheshti Maal et al., 2020; Ramel et al., 2016; Sahrmann et al., 2019), Arkansas finishing smoothed the surface leading to similar roughness between SONIC + A and BUR + A. Raoofi et al, examined the surface roughness obtained by using a sequence of two diamond inserts mounted on a piezosurgery device, obtaining greater values of Ra (1.21 µm, SD 0.26) and Rz (3.94 µm, SD 1.16) (Raoofi et al., 2013). Ra values measured in SONIC + A were similar to those obtained in another study using a sequence of diamond burs followed by a Greenie silicone polisher (Ra 0.59 µm, SD 0.19; Rz 4.35 µm, SD 1.37) (Ramel et al., 2016).…”

“…The combination of diamond burs and Arkansas stones for IP resulted in a smooth implant surface allowing the adhesion of subepithelial connective tissue in vivo (Schwarz et al., 2011). The use of Arkansas as a polishing procedure is preferable than silicone polishers as it does not cause silicone debris contamination of both implant surface and peri‐implant tissues (Beheshti Maal et al., 2020; Costa‐Berenguer et al., 2018; Ramel et al., 2016; Tawse‐Smith et al., 2016). It has been suggested that the release of Ti micro‐ and nano‐particles from dental implants, such as following IP, can stimulate a number of cytokines, which, in turn, sustain a local inflammatory response (Kumazawa et al., 2002; Noronha Oliveira et al., 2018).…”

“…Although there is no definitive evidence that the presence of Ti particles in peri‐implant tissues is correlated to peri‐implantitis, this statement cannot be excluded (Stavropoulos et al., 2019). Finally, some studies report on ultramicroscopic morphology and elemental implant surface composition after IP (Beheshti Maal et al., 2020; Schwarz et al., 2017), however a definitive correlation with hard and soft tissue healing in humans cannot be drawn.…”

Resolution of peri‐implantitis by means of implantoplasty as adjunct to surgical therapy: A retrospective study

“…Up to 15 years ago, only 1 case report was published advocating "implantoplasty" as surface detoxification method. 28 In December 2020, 14 articles were published, [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] where in-vitro studies are dominant. Therefore, it seems that there is a growing interest in this approach as adjunctive therapy to peri-implantitis; nonetheless, evidence is sparse.…”

Implantoplasty- provoking or reducing inflammation? – a systematic scoping review

“…Ideally, this adjunctive treatment may result in an implant surface which impedes bacterial colonisation and facilitates soft tissue adaption. Several in vitro studies have demonstrated that smooth implant surfaces may enhance fibroblast growth compared to rough surfaces [12][13][14][15].…”