Abstract
Abstract
Background and objectives
Alterations in the microenvironment of implant surfaces could influence the cellular crosstalk and adhesion patterns of dental implant materials. Cold plasma has been described to have an influence on cells, tissues, and biomaterials. Hence, the mechanisms of osseointegration may be altered by non-thermal plasma treatment depending on different chemical compositions and surface coatings of the biomaterial. The aim of the present study is to investigate the influence of cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) treatment on implant surfaces and its biological and physicochemical side effects.
Materials and methods
Dental implant discs from titanium and zirconia with different surface modifications were treated with CAP at various durations. Cell behavior and adhesion patterns of human gingival fibroblast (HGF-1) and osteoblast-like cells (MG-63) were examined using scanning electron microscopy and fluorescence microscopy. Surface chemical characterization was analyzed using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Quantitative analysis of cell adhesion, proliferation, and extracellular matrix formation was conducted including real-time PCR.
Results
CAP did not affect the elemental composition of different dental implant materials. Additionally, markers for cell proliferation, extracellular matrix formation, and cell adhesion were differently regulated depending on the application time of CAP treatment in MG-63 cells and gingival fibroblasts.
Conclusions
CAP application is beneficial for dental implant materials to allow for faster proliferation and adhesion of cells from the surrounding tissue on both titanium and zirconia implant surfaces with different surface properties.
Clinical relevance
The healing capacity provided through CAP treatment could enhance osseointegration of dental implants and has the potential to serve as an effective treatment option in periimplantitis therapy.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference55 articles.
1. Masuda T, Salvi GE, Offenbacher S, Felton DA, Cooper LF (1997) Cell and matrix reactions at titanium implants in surgically prepared rat tibiae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:472–485
2. Brunski JB (1999) In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res 13:99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130012301
3. Grassi S, Piattelli A, de Figueiredo LC, Feres M, de Melo L, Iezzi G, Alba RC Jr, Shibli JA (2006) Histologic evaluation of early human bone response to different implant surfaces. J Periodontol 77:1736–1743. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050325
4. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2004) Oral implant surfaces: Part 1–review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 17:536–543
5. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, Beck-Broichsitter B, Jung O, Precht C, Kloss F, Grobe A, Heiland M, Ebker T (2016) Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int 2016:6285620. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6285620
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献