Osteogenic Cell Behavior on Titanium Surfaces in Hard Tissue

Abstract

It is challenging to remove dental implants once they have been inserted into the bone because it is hard to visualize the actual process of bone formation after implant installation, not to mention the cellular events that occur therein. During bone formation, contact osteogenesis occurs on roughened implant surfaces, while distance osteogenesis occurs on smooth implant surfaces. In the literature, there have been many in vitro model studies of bone formation on simulated dental implants using flattened titanium (Ti) discs; however, the purpose of this study was to identify the in vivo cell responses to the implant surfaces on actual, three-dimensional (3D) dental Ti implants and the surrounding bone in contact with such implants at the electron microscopic level using two different types of implant surfaces. In particular, the different parts of the implant structures were scrutinized. In this study, dental implants were installed in rabbit tibiae. The implants and bone were removed on day 10 and, subsequently, assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), immunofluorescence microscopy (IF), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), focused ion-beam (FIB) system with Cs-corrected TEM (Cs-STEM), and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM)—which were used to determine the implant surface characteristics and to identify the cells according to the different structural parts of the turned and roughened implants. The cell attachment pattern was revealed according to the different structural components of each implant surface and bone. Different cell responses to the implant surfaces and the surrounding bone were attained at an electron microscopic level in an in vivo model. These results shed light on cell behavioral patterns that occur during bone regeneration and could be a guide in the use of electron microscopy for 3D dental implants in an in vivo model.

Multimodal Evaluation of the Spatiotemporal Variations of Periprosthetic Bone Properties

“…Our results showing a bone formation starting in the upper corners of the bone chamber seem in better agreement with the contact osteogenesis scenario, since blood is likely to accumulate in L1 after surgery, providing the osteogenic cells needed for bone formation [62,65]. A predominant contact osteogenesis is expected when rougher surfaces are employed [66], as such surfaces offer more space for cells to attach to the implant surface, thus promoting bone cell migration [67]. Furthermore, bone does not only grow in contact with titanium, but also along PTFE on the lateral sides of the bone chamber.…”

Influence of Section Thickness on the Accuracy and Specificity of Histometric Parameters Using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy in a Canine Model of Experimental Peri-Implantitis—A Proof of Concept

“…In our study, we used landmarks to asses the bone loss progression. However, not all points of interest (landmarks) were always visible, for various reasons [ 64 ]. Parameters that are relevant for assessing bone resorption and for defining the existence of a certain stage of peri-implantitis have been successfully acquired in our study (imp-BC, BC-BD, PM-BD, and the angle between IS-BD and BD-BC).…”

Histometric and Histological Analysis of Bone to Screw Contact Between Metallic and Absorbable 2.0 Fixation System: A Pilot Study in Dogs

“…The histometric and histological ndings support that the metallic IF system provoked fewer tissue reactions than the absorbable group and generated a stable environment. It is worth noting that contact osteogenesis was detected at the metallic interface at 18 weeks, created by appropriate surface topography and metallic alloys 38 with new bone formation from the screw surface to the host bone 39 . This can be considered an advantage in most cases; however, it can be a disadvantage in those cases in which the metallic IF system needs to be removed for a speci c reason.…”