Surface Free Energy and Composition Changes and Ob Cellular Response to CHX-, PVPI-, and ClO2-Treated Titanium Implant Materials

Abstract

The study evaluated the interaction of a titanium dental implant surface with three different antibacterial solutions: chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine, and chlorine dioxide. Implant surface decontamination is greatly challenging modern implant dentistry. Alongside mechanical cleaning, different antibacterial agents are widely used, though these could alter implant surface properties. Commercially pure (CP) grade 4 titanium (Ti) discs were treated with three different chemical agents (chlorhexidine 0.2% (CHX), povidone-iodine 10% (PVPI), chlorine dioxide 0.12% (ClO2)) for 5 min. Contact angle measurements, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis, and cell culture studies were performed. Attachment and proliferation of primary human osteoblast cells were investigated via MTT (dimethylthiazol–diphenyl tetrazolium bromide), alamarBlue, LDH (lactate dehydrogenase), and fluorescent assays. Contact angle measurements showed that PVPI-treated samples (Θ = 24.9 ± 4.1) gave no difference compared with controls (Θ = 24.6 ± 5.4), while CHX (Θ = 47.2 ± 4.1) and ClO2 (Θ = 39.2 ± 9.8) treatments presented significantly higher Θ values. All samples remained in the hydrophilic region. XPS analysis revealed typical surface elements of CP grade 4 titanium (Ti, O, and C). Both MTT and alamarBlue cell viability assays showed similarity between treated and untreated control groups. The LDH test revealed no significant difference, and fluorescent staining confirmed these results. Although there was a difference in surface wettability, a high proliferation rate was observed in all treated groups. The in vitro study proved that CHX, PVPI, and ClO2 are proper candidates as dental implant decontamination agents.

Comparison of pre- and post-implantation of Indonesian-made plates in fracture patients: Functional, radiological, biomechanical and chemical analyses

“…Our study showed no significant difference in roughness between pre-and post-implantation plates, concluding that there is no significant difference in roughness between pre-and post-implantation plate specimens. The average roughness values for pre-plating and post-plating were 0.368 µm and 0.378 µm, respectively, falling within the good Ra range (1.2-1.5 µm) considered ideal for bone integration and resistant to biofilm-forming bacteria [35,36].…”

“…Surface hydrophilicity supports protein adsorption and cell adhesion, enhancing bone integration. Studies suggest that increased surface implant hydrophilicity improves protein adsorption, including the arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) sequence, contributing to cell adhesion and osteoblast differentiation, and promoting bone integration [33][34][35][36]. A previous study reported that increased roughness in implants or plates can lead to peri-implantitis and ion leakage, hindering bone integration [35].…”

“…Studies suggest that increased surface implant hydrophilicity improves protein adsorption, including the arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) sequence, contributing to cell adhesion and osteoblast differentiation, and promoting bone integration [33][34][35][36]. A previous study reported that increased roughness in implants or plates can lead to peri-implantitis and ion leakage, hindering bone integration [35]. Our study showed no significant difference in roughness between pre-and post-implantation plates, concluding that there is no significant difference in roughness between pre-and post-implantation plate specimens.…”

Osteoblastic Cell Behavior and Gene Expression Related to Bone Metabolism on Different Titanium Surfaces

“…The mechanism of osseointegration is based on the interactions of the osteoblastic cells with the surface of the biomaterial and the generation of collagen scaffolds in which the apatite and other organic components will be deposited for the formation of the so-called bone matrix and, consequently, the formation of new bone tissue. We can assure that the adhesion of osteoblasts and their cellular activity together with the formation of the extracellular matrix of cells (ECM) are key for the subsequent stages of proliferation and differentiation to complete the osseointegration process [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ].…”

“…The wettability of the four surface types was determined using the static contact angle technique following the sessile drop technique under static conditions and at a temperature of 25 °C [ 25 ]. Six samples for each treatment were analyzed.…”