Comparison of osseointegration in commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness: a pilot study in beagle dogs
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 ‒ 2 μm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 μm). Materials and Methods. Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. Results. Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 μm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 μm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). Conclusion. Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.
Abstract
PURPOSE. This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 ‒ 2 μm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 μm). Materials and Methods. Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. Results. Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 μm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 μm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). Conclusion. Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.
참고문헌 (32)
- Buser D, "Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration : 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions", Periodontol 2000, 73, pp.7~21 (2017)
- Barfeie A, "Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration", Br Dent J, 218, pp.E9~ (2015)
- Mavrogenis AF, "Biology of implant osseointegration", J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 9, pp.61~71 (2009)
- Shibata Y, "A review of improved fixation methods for dental implants. Part I : Surface optimization for rapid osseointegration", J Prosthodont Res, 59, pp.20~33 (2015)
- Pandey C, "Contemporary concepts in osseointegration of dental implants : a review", Biomed Res Int, 2022, pp.6170452~ (2022)
- Jemat A, "Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants", Biomed Res Int, 2015, pp.791725~ (2015)
- Mendonça G, "Advancing dental implant surface technology-from micron-to nanotopography", Biomaterials, 29, pp.3822~3835 (2008)
- Le Guéhennec L, "Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration", Dent Mater, 23, pp.844~854 (2007)
- Medvedev AE, "Effect of bulk microstructure of commercially pure titanium on surface characteristics and fatigue properties after surface modification by sand blasting and acid-etching", J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 57, pp.55~68 (2016)
- Pellegrini G, "Novel surfaces and osseointegration in implant dentistry", J Investig Clin Dent, 9, pp.e12349~ (2018)
- Smeets R, "Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration", Biomed Res Int, 2016, pp.6285620~ (2016)
- Kligman S, "The impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration and biofilm formation", J Clin Med, 10, pp.1641~ (2021)
- Albrektsson T, "Oral implant surfaces : Part 1-review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them", Int J Prosthodont, 17, pp.536~543 (2004)
- Shalabi MM, "Implant surface roughness and bone healing : a systematic review", J Dent Res, 85, pp.496~500 (2006)
- Souza JCM, "Nano-scale modification of titanium implant surfaces to enhance osseointegration", Acta Biomater, 94, pp.112~131 (2019)
- Almas K, "What is the best micro and macro dental implant topography?", Dent Clin North Am, 63, pp.447~460 (2019)
- Matos GRM, "Surface Roughness of Dental Implant and Osseointegration", J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 20, pp.1~4 (2021)
- Marinello F, "Application of ISO 25178 standard for multiscale 3D parametric assessment of surface topographies", IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, 275, pp.012011~ (2019)
- Beck GR Jr, "Relationship between alkaline phosphatase levels, osteopontin expression, and mineralization in differentiating MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts", J Cell Biochem, 68, pp.269~280 (1998)
- Golub EE, "The role of alkaline phosphatase in mineralization", Curr Opin Orthop, 18, pp.444~448 (2007)
- Masaki C, "Effects of implant surface microtopography on osteoblast gene expression", Clin Oral Implants Res, 16, pp.650~656 (2005)
- Schwartz Z, "Implant surface characteristics modulate differentiation behavior of cells in the osteoblastic lineage", Adv Dent Res, 13, pp.38~48 (1999)
- Olivares-Navarrete R, "Direct and indirect effects of microstructured titanium substrates on the induction of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation towards the osteoblast lineage", Biomaterials, 31, pp.2728~2735 (2010)
- Lumbikanonda N, "Bone cell attachment to dental implants of different surface characteristics", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 16, pp.627~636 (2001)
- Junker R, "Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration : a systematic review", Clin Oral Implants Res, 20(Suppl 4), pp.185~206 (2009)
- Silva-Bermudez P, "An overview of protein adsorption on metal oxide coatings for biomedical implants", Surf Coat Technol, 233, pp.147~158 (2013)
- Kopf BS, "The role of nanostructures and hydrophilicity in osseointegration : In-vitro protein-adsorption and blood-interaction studies", J Biomed Mater Res A, 103, pp.2661~2672 (2015)
- Rupp F, "Surface characteristics of dental implants : a review", Dent Mater, 34, pp.40~57 (2018)
- Wennerberg A, "Longterm clinical outcome of implants with different surface modifications", Eur J Oral Implantol, 11(Suppl 1), pp.S123~S136 (2018)
- Cochran DL, "A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces", J Periodontol, 70, pp.1523~1539 (1999)
- Zhang LC, "Surface modification of titanium and titanium alloys : technologies, developments, and future interests", Adv Eng Mater, 22, pp.1901258~ (2020)
- Guo T, "The surface modification of titanium dental implants", pp.117~151 (2023), Springer