The survival and proliferation of fibroblasts on ceramic implants: an in vitro study

Abstract

To improve osseointegration, different possible dental implant surface modifications, e.g., alterations of surface chemistry and roughness, have been developed. The purpose of this study was to examine the in vitro biocompatibility of newly designed zirconium implants with different surface modifications in comparison with commercially available zirconium and titanium implants. Therefore, cell viability and proliferation were measured after 21 days and correlated with surface structures. In the presence of new ceramic implants with an "mds (blasted/etched)" and a "blasted" surface, cell viability was 1.29- and 1.26-fold increased, respectively, compared to untreated cells, whereas cell viability was unchanged in the presence of reference implants and new ceramic implants with an "etched" surface. The cell viability findings correlate with the results of the cell cytotoxicity assay. The etched implants showed a surface with high roughness and heterogeneity, whereas the mds and blasted implants showed a similar, very rough-textured homogenate surface. The in vitro biocompatibility of two new ceramic implants was significantly better in comparison with the tested reference ceramic and titanium implants. The good biocompatibility may be attributed to the homogenous surface of these implants, and these surfaces might hasten osseointegration.

Hierarchical Surface Texturing of Hydroxyapatite Ceramics: Influence on the Adhesive Bonding Strength of Polymeric Polycaprolactone

“…This includes the initial adsorption of proteins and the subsequent attachment, proliferation and differentiation of cells on the implant [ 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 ]. The surface therefore determines the biomechanical fixation in bone (osseointegration) and thus the success and durability of the implant [ 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. For ceramic implants, the surface, in addition, strongly affects the mechanical strength and wear resistance.…”

“…The introduction of periodic micro-textures (such as pits or bioinspired patterns) on hip implant surfaces not only reduced the contact area and thus the wear compared to the polished standard, but additionally provided an intrinsic lubrication and self-cleaning ability of emerging wear debris [ 13 , 15 , 16 ]. Surface modifications of bone implants, especially a surface roughening, were shown to enhance the cell adhesion, cell proliferation and promote bone ingrowth [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 22 ]. Moreover, ceramic surface modifications in dental restorative composites led to an improved component adhesion based on an increased contact surface, mechanical interlocking effects and activated functional groups at the surface for an enhanced chemical adhesion [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].…”

“…Well-ordered surfaces with strict periodic patterns (pits, protrusions or grooves) can be obtained on a nanometer to submillimeter scale by laser ablation [ 13 , 15 , 16 ], lithographic micro-molding [ 32 , 33 ] and additive manufacturing [ 1 ]. Grinding [ 7 , 20 ], etching [ 9 , 17 , 20 ], particle abrasion [ 9 , 17 , 18 , 20 ] and sol–gel coating processes [ 34 , 35 ] generate random surface patterns on a nanometer to micron scale. A subsequent silanization allows one to tailor the surface chemistry (surface energy and wettability) on an atomic scale [ 17 , 18 , 36 ].…”

Comparison of Surface Modified Zirconia Implants With Commercially Available Zirconium and Titanium Implants

“…Only few studies have investigated rough surface modifications of zirconia implants, such as acid etching or sandblasting. 2,11,18,19 New biomaterials including surface modifications should undergo in vitro and in vivo evaluation before clinical trials. 18 Recently, the effect of 3 new surface modifications of zirconia implants on the survival and proliferation of fibroblasts was examined.…”

“…The results of this study show that new implants manufactured by maxon motor GmbH did not present any signs of toxicity; on the contrary, they demonstrate a good in vitro biocompatibility. 19 Cell cultures by no means represent the dynamic in vivo bone/biomaterial environment. Due to this fact, all in vitro results must be validated by animal models and subsequent clinical trials.…”