Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Bioactive characteristics of an implant surface coated with a pH buffering agent: an in vitro study

  • Pae, Hyung-Chul (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Su-Kyoung (Implant R&D Center, Osstem Implant Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Park, Jin-Young (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Song, Young Woo (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, Jae-Kook (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Paik, Jeong-Won (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2019.07.22
  • Accepted : 2019.10.11
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) surface coated with a pH buffering solution based on surface wettability, blood protein adhesion, osteoblast affinity, and platelet adhesion and activation. Methods: Titanium discs and implants with conventional SLA surface (SA), SLA surface in an aqueous calcium chloride solution (CA), and SLA surface with a pH buffering agent (SOI) were prepared. The wetting velocity was measured by the number of threads wetted by blood over an interval of time. Serum albumin adsorption was tested using the bicinchoninic acid assay and by measuring fluorescence intensity. Osteoblast activity assays (osteoblast adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, mineralization, and migration) were also performed, and platelet adhesion and activation assays were conducted. Results: In both the wetting velocity test and the serum albumin adsorption assay, the SOI surface displayed a significantly higher wetting velocity than the SA surface (P=0.000 and P=0.000, respectively). In the osteoblast adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, and mineralization tests, the mean values for SOI were all higher than those for SA and CA. On the osteoblast migration, platelet adhesion, and activation tests, SOI also showed significantly higher values than SA (P=0.040, P=0.000, and P=0.000, respectively). Conclusions: SOI exhibited higher hydrophilicity and affinity for proteins, cells, and platelets than SA. Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that coating an implant with a pH buffering agent can induce the attachment of platelets, proteins, and cells to the implant surface. Further studies should be conducted to directly compare SOI with other conventional surfaces with regard to its safety and effectiveness in clinical settings.

Keywords

References

  1. Massaro C, Rotolo P, De Riccardis F, Milella E, Napoli A, Wieland M, et al. Comparative investigation of the surface properties of commercial titanium dental implants. Part I: chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2002;13:535-48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015170625506
  2. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2--review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:544-64.
  3. Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. The role of implant surface modifications, shape and material on the success of osseointegrated dental implants. A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2005;13:15-31.
  4. Puleo DA, Thomas MV. Implant surfaces. Dent Clin North Am 2006;50:323-38, v. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2006.03.001
  5. Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007;23:844-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025
  6. Morton D, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Martin WC, Ruskin JD, Hart CN, et al. Early loading after 21 days of healing of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-year results of a prospective two-center study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:9-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00204.x
  7. Li D, Ferguson SJ, Beutler T, Cochran DL, Sittig C, Hirt HP, et al. Biomechanical comparison of the sandblasted and acid-etched and the machined and acid-etched titanium surface for dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;60:325-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10063
  8. Lang NP, Salvi GE, Huynh-Ba G, Ivanovski S, Donos N, Bosshardt DD. Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:349-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x
  9. Gittens RA, Scheideler L, Rupp F, Hyzy SL, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Schwartz Z, et al. A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces II: biological and clinical aspects. Acta Biomater 2014;10:2907-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.032
  10. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, et al. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004;83:529-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300704
  11. Scarano A, Piattelli A, Quaranta A, Lorusso F. Bone response to two dental implants with different sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: a histological and histomorphometrical study in rabbits. BioMed Res Int 2017;2017:8724951.
  12. Soares PB, Moura CC, da Rocha Junior HA, Dechichi P, Zanetta-Barbosa D. Biological characterization of implant surfaces - in vitro study. Rev Odontol UNESP 2015;44:195-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.1087
  13. Martin JY, Schwartz Z, Hummert TW, Schraub DM, Simpson J, Lankford J Jr, et al. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:389-401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820290314
  14. Eriksson C, Nygren H, Ohlson K. Implantation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: cellular reactions on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone. Biomaterials 2004;25:4759-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.006
  15. Hong J, Kurt S, Thor A. A hydrophilic dental implant surface exhibits thrombogenic properties in vitro. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:105-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00362.x
  16. Di Iorio D, Traini T, Degidi M, Caputi S, Neugebauer J, Piattelli A. Quantitative evaluation of the fibrin clot extension on different implant surfaces: an in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;74:636-42.
  17. Kohn DH, Sarmadi M, Helman JI, Krebsbach PH. Effects of pH on human bone marrow stromal cells in vitro: implications for tissue engineering of bone. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;60:292-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10050
  18. Arnett TR. Extracellular pH regulates bone cell function. J Nutr 2008;138:415S-8S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/138.2.415S
  19. Kaysinger KK, Ramp WK. Extracellular pH modulates the activity of cultured human osteoblasts. J Cell Biochem 1998;68:83-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4644(19980101)68:1<83::AID-JCB8>3.0.CO;2-S
  20. Marumo M, Suehiro A, Kakishita E, Groschner K, Wakabayashi I. Extracellular pH affects platelet aggregation associated with modulation of store-operated $Ca^{2+}$ entry. Thromb Res 2001;104:353-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-3848(01)00374-7
  21. Engvall E. Enzyme immunoassay ELISA and EMIT. Methods Enzymol 1980;70:419-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(80)70067-8
  22. Jung K, Pergande M. Influence of inorganic phosphate on the activity determination of isoenzymes of alkaline phosphatase in various buffer systems. Clin Chim Acta 1980;102:215-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-8981(80)90035-2
  23. Harada M, Hiraoka BY, Fukasawa K, Fukasawa KM. Purification and properties of bovine dental-pulp alkaline-phosphatase. Arch Oral Biol 1982;27:69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(82)90179-0
  24. Jones JV, Mansour M, James H, Sadi D, Carr RI. A substrate amplification system for enzyme-linked immunoassays. II. Demonstration of its applicability for measuring anti-DNA antibodies. J Immunol Methods 1989;118:79-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1759(89)90056-2
  25. Rausch-fan X, Qu Z, Wieland M, Matejka M, Schedle A. Differentiation and cytokine synthesis of human alveolar osteoblasts compared to osteoblast-like cells (MG63) in response to titanium surfaces. Dent Mater 2008;24:102-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.03.001
  26. Valarmathi MT, Yost MJ, Goodwin RL, Potts JD. The influence of proepicardial cells on the osteogenic potential of marrow stromal cells in a three-dimensional tubular scaffold. Biomaterials 2008;29:2203-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.025
  27. Sudo H, Kodama HA, Amagai Y, Yamamoto S, Kasai S. In vitro differentiation and calcification in a new clonal osteogenic cell line derived from newborn mouse calvaria. J Cell Biol 1983;96:191-8. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.96.1.191
  28. Gregory CA, Gunn WG, Peister A, Prockop DJ. An Alizarin red-based assay of mineralization by adherent cells in culture: comparison with cetylpyridinium chloride extraction. Anal Biochem 2004;329:77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2004.02.002
  29. Malladi P, Xu Y, Chiou M, Giaccia AJ, Longaker MT. Effect of reduced oxygen tension on chondrogenesis and osteogenesis in adipose-derived mesenchymal cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2006;290:C1139-46. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00415.2005
  30. Kanthan SR, Kavitha G, Addi S, Choon DS, Kamarul T. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) enhances bone healing in non-united critical-sized defects: a preliminary study involving rabbit models. Injury 2011;42:782-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.01.015
  31. Tamada Y, Kulik EA, Ikada Y. Simple method for platelet counting. Biomaterials 1995;16:259-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(95)92126-Q
  32. Grunkemeier JM, Tsai WB, Horbett TA. Hemocompatibility of treated polystyrene substrates: contact activation, platelet adhesion, and procoagulant activity of adherent platelets. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;41:657-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19980915)41:4<657::AID-JBM18>3.0.CO;2-B
  33. Park JY, Davies JE. Red blood cell and platelet interactions with titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:530-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006530.x
  34. Klein MO, Grotz KA, Walter C, Wegener J, Wagner W, Al-Nawas B. Functional rehabilitation of mandibular continuity defects using autologous bone and dental implants - prognostic value of bone origin, radiation therapy and implant dimensions. Eur Surg Res 2009;43:269-75. https://doi.org/10.1159/000229027
  35. Justus CR, Leffler N, Ruiz-Echevarria M, Yang LV. In vitro cell migration and invasion assays. J Vis Exp 2014:51046.

Cited by

  1. Coating of a Sand-Blasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surface with a pH-Buffering Agent after Vacuum-UV Photofunctionalization vol.10, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10111040
  2. Secondary stability achieved in dental implants with a calcium‐coated sandblasted, large‐grit, acid‐etched (SLA) surface and a chemically modified SLA surface placed without mechanic vol.32, pp.12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13848