İmplant Yüzey Özelliği Seçimi Adherent Hücrelerin Canlılığını Etkileyebilir

Yıl 2021, , 38 - 44, 03.05.2021

Gül İpek Gündoğan , Tayfun Cıvak , Cenk Kığ

https://doi.org/10.26650/experimed.2021.898858

Öz

Amaç: İmplant materyallerinin hücre canlılığı ve hücre adezyo-nu üzerindeki in vitro etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi, implantların biyo-uyumluluklarının tahmin edilmesi yönünde değerli bilgiler sağlayabilir. Bu nedenle, basit ve maliyetli olmayan bir yöntem kul-lanılarak, farklı yüzey özelliklerine sahip implantların hücre canlılığı ve adezyonunu etkileyip etkilemeyeceğinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Farklı diş implant yüzeylerinin (anotlanmış (AN), patlatılmış buruşuk (BW), kum/asitle aşındırılmış (GA), püs-kürtülmüş hidroksi apatit yüzey (HB)) yapışma ve canlılık üzerin-deki etkileri, adherent insan osteoblast hücre soyunda agar bazlı bir in vitro teknik kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Hücre canlılıklarının belirlenmesinde, 3-(4,5-dimetiltiazol-2-il)-2,5-difeniltetrazolium bromid (MTT) ve tripan mavisi boyama teknikleri uygulanmıştır.

Bulgular: Hücre adezyonunun, dental implantların yüzey özellik-lerindeki farklılıklardan önemli ölçüde etkilenmediği görülmüştür (AN: 78,21±0,52; BW: 78,22±0,48; GA: 78,44±0,85; HB: 77,26±0,96). Ancak, diş implantlarının yüzey özelliklerinin, implantlara tutunan hücrelerin canlılığı üzerinde etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Tutu-nan hücrelerin canlılığının, HB yüzeyine kıyasla AN, BW, GA yüzeylerinde anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur (AN: 72,28±6,04, BW: 67,02±3,47, GA: 85,82±5,05 ve HB: 27,98±10,47).

Sonuçlar: Çalışma kapsamında yapılan in vitro deneylerden elde edilen bulgular; AN, BW, GA yüzeylerinin adherent hücrelerin canlı-lığını korumaları için HB yüzeylerinden daha iyi bir platform sağla-yabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biyouyumlu yüzeyler, düzensiz yüzeyler, hücre adezyon potansiyeli, hücre kültürü, dental implantlar

Choice of Implant Surface-Feature May Affect the Viability of the Adherent Cells

Öz

Objective:In vitro evaluation of implant materials' effects on cell adhesion and viability can provide useful information for predict-ing implant biocompatibility. Therefore by using a simple and in-expensive method, it was aimed to investigate whether different implant surface-features might have distinct effects on the viabili-ty and adherence of the cells.

Material and Methods: Different dental implant surfaces (anod-ized (AN), blasted wrinkled (BW), grit/acid etched (GA), and hy-droxylapatite sprayed (HB)) were tested for their possible effects on adhesion and viability of the adherent human osteoblast cells by using an agar-based in vitro technique. Viability of the cells was assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay and trypan blue staining.

Results: The rate of cell adhesion did not seem to be significantly affected by the differences in surface features of dental implants (AN:78.21±0.52; BW:78.22±0.48; GA:78.44±0.85; HB:77.26±0.96). The surface features of the dental implants had an impact on the viability of the attached cells on the implants. Viability of the at-tached cells was significantly higher on AN, BW, GA surfaces when compared to the HB surface (AN: 72.28±6.04, BW: 67.02±3.47, GA: 85.82±5.05, and HB: 27.98±10.47).

Conclusions:In vitro findings suggests that AN, BW, GA surfaces may provide a better platform than HB surfaces to maintain the viability of bound cells.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biocompatible surfaces, irregular surfaces, cell adhesion potential, cell culture, dental implants

Kaynakça

• 1. Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treat-ments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dental Materials 2007; 23: 844-54. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 2. Osman RB, Swain M V. A Critical Review of Dental Implant Materi-als with an Emphasis on Titanium versus Zirconia. Materials (Basel) 2015; 8: 932-58. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 3. Barfeie A, Wilson J, Rees J. Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. British Dental Journal 2015; 218: 9. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 4. Hayakawa T, Yoshinari M, Nemoto K, Wolke JGC, Jansen JA. Effect of surface roughness and calcium phosphate coating on the im-plant/bone response. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 296-304. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 5. Garda AJ, Gallant ND. Stick and grip: Measurement systems and quantitative analyses of integrin-mediated cell adhesion strength. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics 2003; 39: 61-73. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 6. Khalili AA, Ahmad MR. A Review of cell adhesion studies for bio-medical and biological applications. International Journal of Mo-lecular Sciences 2015; 16: 18149-84. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 7. Gundogan GI. A simple and inexpensive method for evaluation of in vitro cell adhesion on screws. Cytotechnology 2020; 72: 847-54. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 8. Tanaka N, Moriguchi H, Sato A, Kawai T, Shimba K, Jimbo Y, et al. Microcasting with agarose gel via degassed polydimethylsiloxane molds for repellency-guided cell patterning. RSC Adv 2016; 6: 54754-62. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 9. Strober W. Trypan Blue Exclusion Test of Cell Viability. Curr Protoc Immunol 2015; 111: A3.B.1-A3.B.3. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 10. Scudiero DA, Shoemaker RH, Paull KD, Monks A, Tierney S, Nofziger TH, et al. Evaluation of a Soluble Tetrazolium/Formazan Assay for Cell Growth and Drug Sensitivity in Culture Using Hu-man and Other Tumor Cell Lines. Cancer Res 1988; 48: 4827-33. google scholar
• 11. Boyan BD, Batzer R, Kieswetter K, Liu Y, Cochran DL, Szmuck-ler-Moncler S, et al. Titanium surface roughness alters responsive-ness of MG63 osteoblast- like cells to 1a,25-(OH)2D3. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 39: 77-85. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 12. Martin JY, Schwartz Z, Hummert TW, Schraub DM, Simpson J, Lankford J, et al. Effect of titanium surface roughness on prolifer-ation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J Biomed Mater Res 1995; 29: 389-401. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 13. Puleo DA, Thomas M V. Implant Surfaces. Dental Clinics of North America 2006; 50: 323-38. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 14. Davies JE. Understanding Peri-Implant Endosseous Healing. J Dent Educ 2003; 67: 932-49. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 15. Deligianni DD, Katsala N, Ladas S, Sotiropoulou D, Amedee J, Mis-sirlis YF. Effect of surface roughness of the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V on human bone marrow cell response and on protein adsorption. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 41-1251. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 16. Kubies D, Himmlova L, Riedel T, Chanova E, BaKk K, Douderova M, et al. The interaction of osteoblasts with bone-implant materials: 1. The effect of physicochemical surface properties of implant ma-terials. Physiol Res 2011; 60: 95-111. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 17. An N, Rausch-Fan X, Wieland M, Matejka M, Andrukhov O, Sche-dle A. Initial attachment, subsequent cell proliferation/viability and gene expression of epithelial cells related to attachment and wound healing in response to different titanium surfaces. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1207-14. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 18. Postiglione L, Di Domenico G, Ramaglia L, Montagnani S, Salzano S, Di Meglio F, et al. Behavior of SaOS-2 cells cultured on different titanium surfaces. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 692-96. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 19. Rosa AL, Beloti MM. Rat bone marrow cell response to titanium and titanium alloy with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Im-plants Res 2003; 14: 43-8. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 20. Arcelli D, Palmieri A, Pezzetti F, Brunelli G, Zollino I, Carinci F. Ge-netic effects of a titanium surface on osteoblasts: a meta-analysis. J Oral Sci 2007; 49: 299-309. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 21. Kieswetter K, Schwartz Z, Dean DD, Boyan BD. The role of implant surface characteristics in the healing of bone. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1996; 7: 329-45. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 22. Lauer G, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Otten JE, Hübner U, Schmel-zeisen R, Schilli W. The titanium surface texture effects adherence and growth of human gingival keratinocytes and human maxil-lar osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 2799-809. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 23. Conserva E, Menini M, Ravera G, Pera P. The role of surface implant treatments on the biological behavior of SaOS-2 osteoblast-like cells. An in vitro comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 880-9. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 24. Bucci-Sabattini V, Cassinelli C, Coelho PG, Minnici A, Trani A, Eh-renfest DMD. Effect of titanium implant surface nanoroughness and calcium phosphate low impregnation on bone cell activity in vitro. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontolo-gy 2010; 109: 217-24. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 25. Sammons RL, Lumbikanonda N, Gross M, Cantzler P. Comparison of osteoblast spreading on microstructured dental implant sur-faces and cell behaviour in an explant model of osseointegration: A scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 657-66. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 26. Novaes AB, Papalexiou V, Grisi MFM, Souza SSLS, Taba M, Kajiwara JK. Influence of implant microstructure on the osseointegration of immediate implants placed in periodontally infected sites: A histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 34-43. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 27. Marin C, Granato R, Suzuki M, Gil JN, Piattelli A, Coelho PG. Re-moval Torque and Histomorphometric Evaluation of Bioceramic Grit-Blasted/Acid-Etched and Dual Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: An Experimental Study in Dogs. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 1942-9. [CrossRef] google scholar
• 28. Lumbikanonda N, Sammons R. Bone Cell Attachment to Dental Implants of Different Surface Characteristics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2001; 16: 627-36. google scholar