Cargando…

Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface

Background: This study compared the in vitro response of a mouse pre-osteoblast cell line on a novel sandblasted zirconia surface with that of titanium. Material and Methods: The MC3T3-E1 subclone 4 osteoblast precursor cell line was cultured on either sandblasted titanium (SBCpTi) or sandblasted zi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Munro, Thomas, Miller, Catherine M., Antunes, Elsa, Sharma, Dileep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565437/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32708701
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb11030050
_version_ 1783595932653191168
author Munro, Thomas
Miller, Catherine M.
Antunes, Elsa
Sharma, Dileep
author_facet Munro, Thomas
Miller, Catherine M.
Antunes, Elsa
Sharma, Dileep
author_sort Munro, Thomas
collection PubMed
description Background: This study compared the in vitro response of a mouse pre-osteoblast cell line on a novel sandblasted zirconia surface with that of titanium. Material and Methods: The MC3T3-E1 subclone 4 osteoblast precursor cell line was cultured on either sandblasted titanium (SBCpTi) or sandblasted zirconia (SBY-TZP). The surface topography was analysed by three-dimensional laser microscopy and scanning electron microscope. The wettability of the discs was also assessed. The cellular response was quantified by assessing the morphology (day 1), proliferation (day 1, 3, 5, 7, 9), viability (day 1, 9), and migration (0, 6, 24 h) assays. Results: The sandblasting surface treatment in both titanium and zirconia increased the surface roughness by rendering a defined surface topography with titanium showing more apparent nano-topography. The wettability of the two surfaces showed no significant difference. The zirconia surface resulted in improved cellular spreading and a significantly increased rate of migration compared to titanium. However, the cellular proliferation and viability noted in our experiments were not significantly different on the zirconia and titanium surfaces. Conclusions: The novel, roughened zirconia surface elicited cellular responses comparable to, or exceeding that, of titanium. Therefore, this novel zirconia surface may be an acceptable substitute for titanium as a dental implant material.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7565437
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75654372020-10-26 Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface Munro, Thomas Miller, Catherine M. Antunes, Elsa Sharma, Dileep J Funct Biomater Article Background: This study compared the in vitro response of a mouse pre-osteoblast cell line on a novel sandblasted zirconia surface with that of titanium. Material and Methods: The MC3T3-E1 subclone 4 osteoblast precursor cell line was cultured on either sandblasted titanium (SBCpTi) or sandblasted zirconia (SBY-TZP). The surface topography was analysed by three-dimensional laser microscopy and scanning electron microscope. The wettability of the discs was also assessed. The cellular response was quantified by assessing the morphology (day 1), proliferation (day 1, 3, 5, 7, 9), viability (day 1, 9), and migration (0, 6, 24 h) assays. Results: The sandblasting surface treatment in both titanium and zirconia increased the surface roughness by rendering a defined surface topography with titanium showing more apparent nano-topography. The wettability of the two surfaces showed no significant difference. The zirconia surface resulted in improved cellular spreading and a significantly increased rate of migration compared to titanium. However, the cellular proliferation and viability noted in our experiments were not significantly different on the zirconia and titanium surfaces. Conclusions: The novel, roughened zirconia surface elicited cellular responses comparable to, or exceeding that, of titanium. Therefore, this novel zirconia surface may be an acceptable substitute for titanium as a dental implant material. MDPI 2020-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7565437/ /pubmed/32708701 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb11030050 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Munro, Thomas
Miller, Catherine M.
Antunes, Elsa
Sharma, Dileep
Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface
title Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface
title_full Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface
title_fullStr Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface
title_full_unstemmed Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface
title_short Interactions of Osteoprogenitor Cells with a Novel Zirconia Implant Surface
title_sort interactions of osteoprogenitor cells with a novel zirconia implant surface
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565437/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32708701
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb11030050
work_keys_str_mv AT munrothomas interactionsofosteoprogenitorcellswithanovelzirconiaimplantsurface
AT millercatherinem interactionsofosteoprogenitorcellswithanovelzirconiaimplantsurface
AT antuneselsa interactionsofosteoprogenitorcellswithanovelzirconiaimplantsurface
AT sharmadileep interactionsofosteoprogenitorcellswithanovelzirconiaimplantsurface