The impact of surface alteration on epithelial tissue attachment after the mechanical cleaning of titanium or zirconia surface

Abstract

Objective Mechanical plaque removal may alter the surface morphology of the gingival penetration part of the implant. We applied an air‐powered abrasive system (AP), titanium curette (TC), stainless curette (SC), ultrasound scaler (US), and titanium brush (TB) which are commonly used to remove plaque, to titanium or zirconia and the changes in surface morphology and the epithelial attach against substrata. Materials and Methods (a) The morphological changes of titanium and zirconia after mechanical cleaning were assessed by scanning electron microscopy and a roughness analyser. (b) Oral epithelial cells of rats were inoculated on the surface of the materials after mechanical cleaning, and the adherence of epithelial cells was observed. (c) The maxillary first molars were extracted from the rats and replaced by experimental titanium or zirconia implants. The length of the immunoreactive laminin‐332 band was observed at the implant‐peri‐implant epithelium interface. Results (a) The surface roughness increased in experimental groups except the AP group. (b) Among the experimental groups, the AP group showed the highest number of attached cells. (c) The length of the immunoreactive laminin‐332 band was longer in the control group than those in all five experimental groups. Among the experimental groups, the AP group showed the longest band. Conclusion All mechanical cleaning methods increased the surface roughness of the materials except AP. AP did not cause distinct implant surface alterations. Surface alteration caused by mechanical cleaning may evoke inferior for epithelial attachment and reduce resistance against foreign infiltration.

Localization of Integrin Beta-4 Subunit at Soft Tissue–Titanium or Zirconia Interface

“…The Ti screw and transgingival part were engaged with each other using friction. The surface roughness value (Ra) of the transgingival part of each implant was 0.86 ± 0.033 μm in Ti and 0.13 ± 0.025 μm in zirconia [ 10 ].…”

Assessment of the Soft-Tissue Seal at the Interface between the Base of the Fixed Denture Pontic and the Oral Mucosa

“…As adhesion assays, the adhering oral epithelial cells on the five materials were counted before and after using a rotary shaker (NX-20; Nissin, Tokyo, Japan) [ 19 ]. The percentage of remaining adherent cells was defined as the adhesive power of the cells.…”

Junctional epithelium and hemidesmosomes: Tape and rivets for solving the “percutaneous device dilemma” in dental and other permanent implants

“…[ [387] , [388] , [389] , [390] , [391] , [392] , [393] , [394] , [395] ] Parallel observations were being made from groups investigating implant osseointegration; osseointegration was dependent on implant material, rougher surfaces promoted osseointegration, and adsorbed protein content controlled osseointegration [ [396] , [397] , [398] , [399] , [400] , [401] , [402] ]. Since then, only a handful of studies have confirmed that physicochemistry and topography control HD in vitro [ 403 ] and in rat models [ 384 , [404] , [405] , [406] ], and specifically that HD formation (in rats at least) is generally higher on zirconia than titanium [ [407] , [408] , [409] ]. Overviews of the effects of surface topography on implant soft tissue responses may be found elsewhere [ 347 , [410] , [411] , [412] ].…”