Residual decontamination chemical agents negatively affect adhesion and proliferation of osteoblast-like cells on implant surface

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the influence of implant surface decontaminated and uncontaminated on osteoblast-like cell adhesion and proliferation Materials and methods Commercially available implants of different brands and surface characteristics were selected: Biomet 3i® Nanotite (NT) and Osseotite (OT), Straumann® SLActive (SLA), and Neodent® Acqua Drive (ACQ) and Neoporos Drive CM (CM). Physical and chemical properties of the implants were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and wettability analysis (WETT). Implants were previously contaminated with Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans strains; after that, samples were decontaminated by different chemical methods. Decontaminated (test group; n = 15/type of implant) and uncontaminated (control group; n = 5/type of implant) samples were analyzed according to the number of human osteoblastic osteosarcoma cells (Saos-2) adhered on the implant surface after 24 h and 72 h in SEM images. Results ACQ was found to be highly hydrophilic, and NT was the most hydrophobic implant. Increased variation of Saos-2 cell adhesion and proliferation were observed on all test and control groups. Controversially, at the proliferation analysis in 72 h, CM implant was the only implant that showed no significant difference between test and group (p = 0.2833; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). NT implants showed the greater value of cell proliferation when compared with all types of implant surface (p = 0.0002; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). Conclusions These findings suggest that decontaminated surfaces were able to impair the counting of osteoblast-like cell adhesion and proliferation.

Efficacy of a novel three‐step decontamination protocol for titanium‐based dental implants: An in vitro and in vivo study

“…Regarding the cell readhesion onto treated surfaces after mechanical instrumentations, all groups resulted in low cytotoxicity and high metabolic activity of fibroblasts after 24 h of culture. This finding can be associated with the direct preservation of the valleys region microstructure (Balderrama et al., 2020), which are the preferred cell adhesion sites on the surfaces, avoiding the peaks. This first phase determines the further behavior of the cells in contact with the implant surface (i.e., cell proliferation and differentiation), which could facilitate successful re‐osseointegration (Cao et al., 2018; Stein et al., 2023).…”

“…If the remaining biofilm structure is not removed, it may promote microbial recolonization and persistent infection (Bowen et al., 2018). For this reason, chemotherapeutic agents have also been applied as an adjunct to subgingival instrumentation (Balderrama et al., 2020). However, the effectiveness of disinfection protocols remains unpredictable and reported beneficial clinical outcomes might be restricted to a short‐term period, especially if implant surfaces are left exposed in the oral cavity (Renvert et al., 2008; Shibli et al., 2019).…”

Facile Fabrication of 3D-Printed Porous Ti6Al4V Scaffolds with a Sr-CaP Coating for Bone Regeneration

“…This is because cell adhesion is greatly associated with the surface morphology and composition of the implant. After implantation, biomaterial surfaces directly interacted with cells and tissues, substantially influencing a variety of cellular activities such as adhesion, spreading, migration, proliferation, and differentiation, as well as the result of tissue repair and regeneration . Therefore, the implant surface biological properties also should be considered during the development and design of implants as well as the suitable porous structure , and mechanical characteristics .…”