Genomic analyses of early peri-implant bone healing in humans: a systematic review

Abstract

ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting gene expression analyses (GEA) of the biological processes involved in early human peri-implant bone healing.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched in duplicate. Controlled and uncontrolled studies reporting GEA of human peri-implant tissues - including ≥5 patients and ≥2 time points - during the first 4 weeks of healing were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality and risk of bias were also assessed.ResultsFour exploratory studies were included in reporting GEA of either tissues attached to SLA or SLActive implants after 4 to 14 days or cells attached to TiOBlast or Osseospeed implants after 3 to 7 days. A total of 111 implants from 43 patients were analyzed using validated array methods; however, considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias were detected. A consistent overall pattern of gene expression was observed; genes representing an immuno-inflammatory response were overexpressed at days 3 to 4, followed by genes representing osteogenic processes at day 7. Genes representing bone remodeling, angiogenesis, and neurogenesis were expressed concomitantly with osteogenesis. Several regulators of these processes, such as cytokines, growth factors, transcription factors, and signaling pathways, were identified. Implant surface properties seemed to influence the healing processes at various stages via differential gene expression.ConclusionLimited evidence from gene expression studies in humans indicates that osteogenic processes commence within the first post-operative week and they appear influenced at various stages by implant surface properties.

Comparison between inflammation-related markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinical parameters during osseointegration in edentulous jaws

“…Osseointegration depends on the osteogenesis at the implant interface. This dynamic process results from a complex set of inflammation-related reactions, such as bone resorption and apposition, angiogenesis, and neurogenesis [3,4]. Once the body detects the implant, an immune-mediated foreign body reaction (FBR) activates several key biological processes, such as signaling pathways and activation of transcription factors, cell growth and differentiation, cytokines, and secretion of growth factors [4].…”

Histomorphometric evaluation of a dual acid‐etched vs. a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid‐etched implant surface. An experimental study in dogs

“…In perspective, lack of significant differences between the SAE-HD and SAE implants in the present study seems unlikely to be due to lack of significant hydrophilicity of this specific manufacturing technology, although this possibility cannot exclusively be rejected. In a recent systematic review of human histological studies on molecular aspects of early stages of osseointegration (Shanbhag et al 2015) it has been confirmed that chemical modifications of moderately rough implant surfaces resulting in increased hydrophilicity, indeed seem to enhance molecular processes related to osseointegration during the early stages of wound healing in the clinic. For example, specifically designed titanium devices with SLActive surface, implanted in the retromolar area in humans, achieved significantly higher amounts of BIC after 2-and 4 weeks comparing to devices with SLA surface; after 42 days, however, these differences were no longer evident .…”

Implant‐associated gene expression in the jaw bone of smokers and nonsmokers: A human study using quantitative qPCR

“…Furthermore, machined implants exhibited higher marginal bone loss and were more prone to failure than oxidized implants after five years (Sayardoust et al., ). Studies in humans which addressed the genes expressed at different implant surfaces during early osseointegration (Bryington, Mendonca, Nares, & Cooper, ; Donos et al., ; Ivanovski et al., ; Thalji, Nares, & Cooper, ) revealed different patterns of expression depending on the surface of the implant (Shanbhag, Shanbhag, & Stavropoulos, ). Common to these studies was the use of a method involving miniature implants, subsequently explanted from the recipient jaw with or without the retrieval of the surrounding bone.…”