Cargando…

In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®

BACKGROUND: An ideal implant should have a surface that is conducive to osseointegration. In vitro cell culture studies using disks made of same materials and surface as of implants may provide useful information on the events occurring at the implant-tissue interface. In the current study, we teste...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dhaliwal, Jagjit Singh, Marulanda, Juliana, Li, Jingjing, Alebrahim, Sharifa, Feine, Jocelyne Sheila, Murshed, Monzur
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28656566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0083-5
_version_ 1783246434361933824
author Dhaliwal, Jagjit Singh
Marulanda, Juliana
Li, Jingjing
Alebrahim, Sharifa
Feine, Jocelyne Sheila
Murshed, Monzur
author_facet Dhaliwal, Jagjit Singh
Marulanda, Juliana
Li, Jingjing
Alebrahim, Sharifa
Feine, Jocelyne Sheila
Murshed, Monzur
author_sort Dhaliwal, Jagjit Singh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An ideal implant should have a surface that is conducive to osseointegration. In vitro cell culture studies using disks made of same materials and surface as of implants may provide useful information on the events occurring at the implant-tissue interface. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that there is no difference in the proliferation and differentiation capacities of osteoblastic cells when cultured on titanium disks mimicking the surface of 3M™ESPE™ MDIs or standard (Ankylos®) implants. METHODS: Cells were grown on disks made of the same materials and with same surface texture as those of the original implants. Disks were sterilized and coated with 2% gelatin solution prior to the cell culture experiments. C2C12 pluripotent cells treated with 300 ng/ml bone morphogenetic protein 2 BMP-2 and a stably transfected C2C12 cell line expressing BMP2 were used as models for osteogenic cells. The Hoechst 33258-stained nuclei were counted to assay cell proliferation, while alkaline phosphatase (ALPL) immunostaining was performed to investigate osteogenic differentiation. MC3T3-E1 cells were cultured as model osteoblasts. The cells were differentiated and assayed for proliferation and metabolic activities by Hoechst 33258 staining and Alamar blue reduction assays, respectively. Additionally, cultures were stained by calcein to investigate their mineral deposition properties. RESULTS: Electron microscopy showed greater degree of roughness on the MDI surfaces. Nuclear counting showed significantly higher number of C2C12 cells on the MDI surface. Although immunostaining detected higher number of ALPL-positive cells, it was not significant when normalized by cell numbers. The number of MC3T3-E1 cells was also higher on the MDI surface, and accordingly, these cultures showed higher Alamar blue reduction. Finally, calcein staining revealed that the MC3T3-E1 cells grown on MDI surfaces deposited more minerals. CONCLUSIONS: Although both implant surfaces are conducive for osteoblastic cell attachment, proliferation, and extracellular matrix mineralization, cell proliferation is higher on MDI surfaces, which may in turn facilitate osseointegration via increased ECM mineralization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5487315
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54873152017-07-13 In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos® Dhaliwal, Jagjit Singh Marulanda, Juliana Li, Jingjing Alebrahim, Sharifa Feine, Jocelyne Sheila Murshed, Monzur Int J Implant Dent Research BACKGROUND: An ideal implant should have a surface that is conducive to osseointegration. In vitro cell culture studies using disks made of same materials and surface as of implants may provide useful information on the events occurring at the implant-tissue interface. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that there is no difference in the proliferation and differentiation capacities of osteoblastic cells when cultured on titanium disks mimicking the surface of 3M™ESPE™ MDIs or standard (Ankylos®) implants. METHODS: Cells were grown on disks made of the same materials and with same surface texture as those of the original implants. Disks were sterilized and coated with 2% gelatin solution prior to the cell culture experiments. C2C12 pluripotent cells treated with 300 ng/ml bone morphogenetic protein 2 BMP-2 and a stably transfected C2C12 cell line expressing BMP2 were used as models for osteogenic cells. The Hoechst 33258-stained nuclei were counted to assay cell proliferation, while alkaline phosphatase (ALPL) immunostaining was performed to investigate osteogenic differentiation. MC3T3-E1 cells were cultured as model osteoblasts. The cells were differentiated and assayed for proliferation and metabolic activities by Hoechst 33258 staining and Alamar blue reduction assays, respectively. Additionally, cultures were stained by calcein to investigate their mineral deposition properties. RESULTS: Electron microscopy showed greater degree of roughness on the MDI surfaces. Nuclear counting showed significantly higher number of C2C12 cells on the MDI surface. Although immunostaining detected higher number of ALPL-positive cells, it was not significant when normalized by cell numbers. The number of MC3T3-E1 cells was also higher on the MDI surface, and accordingly, these cultures showed higher Alamar blue reduction. Finally, calcein staining revealed that the MC3T3-E1 cells grown on MDI surfaces deposited more minerals. CONCLUSIONS: Although both implant surfaces are conducive for osteoblastic cell attachment, proliferation, and extracellular matrix mineralization, cell proliferation is higher on MDI surfaces, which may in turn facilitate osseointegration via increased ECM mineralization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5487315/ /pubmed/28656566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0083-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Dhaliwal, Jagjit Singh
Marulanda, Juliana
Li, Jingjing
Alebrahim, Sharifa
Feine, Jocelyne Sheila
Murshed, Monzur
In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®
title In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®
title_full In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®
title_fullStr In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®
title_full_unstemmed In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®
title_short In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®
title_sort in vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3m™espe™ mdis versus ankylos®
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28656566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0083-5
work_keys_str_mv AT dhaliwaljagjitsingh invitrocomparisonoftwotitaniumdentalimplantsurfacetreatments3mespemdisversusankylos
AT marulandajuliana invitrocomparisonoftwotitaniumdentalimplantsurfacetreatments3mespemdisversusankylos
AT lijingjing invitrocomparisonoftwotitaniumdentalimplantsurfacetreatments3mespemdisversusankylos
AT alebrahimsharifa invitrocomparisonoftwotitaniumdentalimplantsurfacetreatments3mespemdisversusankylos
AT feinejocelynesheila invitrocomparisonoftwotitaniumdentalimplantsurfacetreatments3mespemdisversusankylos
AT murshedmonzur invitrocomparisonoftwotitaniumdentalimplantsurfacetreatments3mespemdisversusankylos