Biocompatibility of Subperiosteal Dental Implants: Effects of Differently Treated Titanium Surfaces on the Expression of ECM-Related Genes in Gingival Fibroblasts.
collagen type I-alpha chain 1
fibronectin
focal adhesion kinase
gene expression
gingival fibroblasts
subperiosteal implants
titanium alloys
vinculin
wound healing
Journal
Journal of functional biomaterials
ISSN: 2079-4983
Titre abrégé: J Funct Biomater
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101570734
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jan 2023
20 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
24
12
2022
revised:
14
01
2023
accepted:
17
01
2023
entrez:
24
2
2023
pubmed:
25
2
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Titanium alloys currently are the most used material for the manufacture of dental endosseous implants. However, in partially or totally edentulous patients, varying degrees of maxillary bone resorption usually occur, making the application of these devices difficult or even impossible. In these cases, a suitable alternative is offered by subperiosteal implants, whose use is undergoing a revival of interest following the introduction of novel, computer-assisted manufacturing techniques. Several procedures have been developed for the modification of titanium surfaces so to improve their biocompatibility and integration with bone. Information is, however, still incomplete as far as the most convenient surface modifications to apply with subperiosteal implants, in which an integration with soft mucosal tissues is just as important. The present study aimed at evaluating whether different treatments of titanium surfaces can produce different effects on the viability, attachment, and differentiation of gingival fibroblasts, i.e., the cell type mainly involved in osteointegration as well as the healing of soft tissues injured by surgical procedures, in order to verify whether any of the treatments are preferable under these respects. The human immortalized gingival fibroblast (CRL-4061 line) were cultured in the presence of titanium specimens previously treated with five different procedures for surface modification: (i) raw machined (Ti-1); (ii) electropolished (Ti-2); (iii) sand-blasted acid-etched (Ti-3); (iv) Al Ti Color™ proprietary procedure (Ti-4); and (v) anodized (Ti-5). At different times of incubation, viability and proliferation of cells, was determined along with the changes in the expression patterns of ECM-related genes involved in fibroblast attachment and differentiation: vinculin, fibronectin, collagen type I-alpha 1 chain, focal adhesion kinase, integrin β-1, and N-cadherin. Three different experiments were carried out for each experimental point. The release from fibroblasts of endothelin-1 was also analyzed as a marker of inflammatory response. The proliferation and migration of fibroblasts were evaluated by scratch tests. None of the five types of titanium surface tested significantly affected the fibroblasts' viability and proliferation. The release of endothelin-1 was also not significantly affected by any of the specimens. On the other hand, all titanium specimens significantly stimulated the expression of ECM-related genes at varying degrees. The proliferation and migration abilities of fibroblasts were also significantly stimulated by all types of titanium surface, with a higher-to-lower efficiency in the order: Ti-3 > Ti-4 > Ti-5 > Ti-2 > Ti-1, thus identifying sandblasting acid-etching as the most convenient treatment. Our observations suggest that the titanium alloys used for manufacturing subperiosteal dental implants do not produce cytotoxic or proinflammatory effects on gingival fibroblasts, and that sandblasting acid-etching may be the surface treatment of choice as to stimulate the differentiation of gingival fibroblasts in the direction of attachment and migration, i.e., the features allegedly associated with a more efficient implant osteointegration, wound healing, and connective tissue seal formation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36826858
pii: jfb14020059
doi: 10.3390/jfb14020059
pmc: PMC9964008
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Dec;17(6):736-45
pubmed: 17092235
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Nov 11;8:603072
pubmed: 33262980
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 3;10(1):1652
pubmed: 32015361
Cell Signal. 2017 Aug;36:240-254
pubmed: 28412414
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015 Apr;26(4):169
pubmed: 25804303
J Oral Implantol. 1995;21(1):35-9
pubmed: 7473869
Biomed Res. 2009 Dec;30(6):349-55
pubmed: 20051644
Biomedicines. 2021 Nov 18;9(11):
pubmed: 34829938
J Prosthodont. 2021 Jan;30(1):65-70
pubmed: 32656785
Oper Dent. 2021 Nov 1;46(6):E264-E275
pubmed: 34919730
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019 Jul-Sep;9(3):179-185
pubmed: 31049281
Cancer Cell Int. 2022 Dec 9;22(1):394
pubmed: 36494720
J Funct Biomater. 2022 May 23;13(2):
pubmed: 35645272
Biology (Basel). 2021 Sep 18;10(9):
pubmed: 34571808
Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 28;2018:5420391
pubmed: 29998133
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2019 Jul;107(7):1379-1385
pubmed: 30724473
J Periodontal Res. 2003 Aug;38(4):417-21
pubmed: 12828660
Stem Cells Dev. 2010 Jan;19(1):93-104
pubmed: 19469666
Int Rev Cell Mol Biol. 2011;287:191-231
pubmed: 21414589
Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 28;11(1):15390
pubmed: 34321582
J Funct Biomater. 2022 Nov 25;13(4):
pubmed: 36547525
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:791725
pubmed: 26436097