Human Gingival Fibroblast and Osteoblast Behavior on Groove-Milled Zirconia Implant Surfaces

Abstract

Two type of cells representing periodontal hard tissues (osteoblasts) and soft tissues (fibroblasts) were evaluated in response to microgroove-milled zirconia surfaces. A total of 90 zirconia discs were randomly assigned to four width-standardized milling microgroove-textured groups and a control group without grooves (UT). The sandblast and acid-etch protocol were applied to all samples. Both cell lines were cultured on zirconia discs from 1 day up to 14 days. Cell morphology and adhesion were evaluated after 1 day of culturing. Cell viability and proliferation of the cells were measured. Alkaline phosphatase activity, collagen I, osteopontin, interleukin 1β and interleukin 8 secretions were assessed at predefined times. The results obtained were presented in the form of bar graphs as means and standard deviations. Multi comparisons between groups were evaluated using two-away ANOVA or Mann–Whitney tests, and a p-value < 0.05 was established. Group comparisons with regard to cell viability, proliferation and secretion of collagen I, interleukin-1β and interleukin 8 revealed no statistically significant differences. The alkaline phosphatase activity and osteopontin secretion were significantly higher in the group with a large groove compared to the small one and the control group. Nevertheless, the viability of gingival and bone cells did not appear to be affected by the milled microgroove texture compared to the conventional sandblasted and acid-etched texture, but they seem to influence osteoblasts’ cellular differentiation.

Nanostructured graphene oxide enriched with metallic nanoparticles as a biointerface to enhance cell adhesion through mechanosensory modifications

“…For example, less rough surfaces are more favorable for the growth and development of fibroblasts compared to bonederived cells. 32,33 Moreover, cells show varying degrees of tolerance to changes in surface roughness. The high surface roughness value of micro-structured surfaces may result in the downregulation of adhesion-related genes such as integrins or laminins by epithelial cells compared to cells cultivated on nanostructured surfaces with lower roughness, while fibroblasts growing on both nano-and micro-structured surfaces express genes on a similar level, but higher than the control cells.…”