The In Vitro Evaluation of Preosteoblast Migration From 3-D-printed Scaffolds to Decontaminated Smooth and Minimally Rough Titanium Surfaces: A Pilot Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2021
The In Vitro Evaluation of Preosteoblast Migration From 3-D-printed Scaffolds to Decontaminated Smooth and Minimally Rough Titanium Surfaces: A Pilot Study
In vitro evaluations are essential to gaining a better understanding of re-osseointegration, while reducing animal use and the overall costs of peri-implantitis studies. This pilot study evaluated preosteoblast migration from 3-D-printed scaffolds to decontaminated titanium microimplants, creating a system that tries to mimic the bone–implant interface. Smooth (S) and minimally rough (R) titanium microimplants were incubated in Escherichia coli cultures and divided into six groups according to the decontamination protocol applied: EDTA gel (EDTA); chlorhexidine (CHL); chlorhexidine-soaked gauze (GCHL); scaling (SC); titanium brush (TiB); and implantoplasty (IP). Pristine S and R microimplants were used as the controls (C). After the decontamination procedures, the microimplants were inserted in 3-D-printed polyurethane-based scaffolds previously inoculated with preosteoblast cell cultures. Cellular migration was assessed after 24, 72 and 120 hours by ATP quantification. At the 120-hour time point, there was no statistically significant difference between S-C, S-EDTA, S-CHL, S-GCHL and S-SC (p > 0.05), and between R-C, R-EDTA and R-GCHL (p > 0.05). The in vitro model developed in this pilot study successfully demonstrated cell migration on the different decontaminated surfaces. This methodology suggests that on smooth microimplants, EDTA, GCHL, SC and TiB decontamination may have a reduced impact on preosteoblast migration, while on minimally rough microimplants, EDTA and GCHL decontamination affected cell migration the least. However, when selecting a decontamination protocol, the effectiveness of the decontamination per se must also be considered.
LeeCTHuangYWZhuL, et al.Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent2017; 62: 1–12.
4.
BusenlechnerDFurhauserRHaasR, et al.Long-term implant success at the academy for oral implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci2014; 44(3): 102–108.
5.
TarnowDP. Increasing prevalence of peri-implantitis: How will we manage?J Dent Res2016; 95(1): 7–8.
6.
DaubertDMWeinsteinBFBordinS, et al.Prevalence and predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant failure: a cross-sectional analysis. J Periodontol2015; 86(3): 337–347.
7.
FletcherPDeluizDTinocoEM, et al.Human histologic evidence of reosseointegration around an implant affected with peri-implantitis following decontamination with sterile saline and antiseptics: a case history report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2017; 37(4): 499–508.
8.
SmeetsRHenningsenAJungO, et al.Definition, etiology, prevention and treatment of peri-implantitis — a review. Head Face Med2014; 10(1): 34.
9.
SubramaniKWismeijerD. Decontamination of titanium implant surface and re-osseointegration to treat peri-implantitis: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2012; 27(5): 1043–1054.
10.
MadiMHtetMZakariaO, et al.Re-osseointegration of dental implants after periimplantitis treatments: a systematic review. Implant Dent2018; 27(1): 101–110.
11.
EspositoMGrusovinMGWorthingtonHV. Treatment of peri-implantitis: What interventions are effective? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol2012; 5(Suppl): S21–S41.
12.
KotsakisGALanCBarbosaJ, et al.Antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of peri-implantitis alter the physicochemistry and cytocompatibility of titanium surfaces. J Periodontol2016; 87(7): 809–819.
13.
SchwarzFPapanicolauPRothamelD, et al.Influence of plaque biofilm removal on reestablishment of the biocompatibility of contaminated titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A2006; 77(3): 437–444.
14.
StuaniVTKimDMNagaiM, et al.Effectiveness and surface changes of different decontamination protocols at smooth and minimally rough titanium surfaces. J Periodontol2020; 92(5): 704–715.
15.
AtsutaIAyukawaYKondoR, et al.Soft tissue sealing around dental implants based on histological interpretation. J Prosthodont Res2016; 60(1): 3–11.
16.
FroumSJRosenPS. Reentry evaluation following treatment of peri-implantitis with a regenerative approach. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2014; 34(1): 47–59.
17.
SchwarzFHegewaldAJohnG, et al.Four-year follow-up of combined surgical therapy of advanced peri-implantitis evaluating two methods of surface decontamination. J Clin Periodontol2013; 40(10): 962–967.
18.
AlhagMRenvertSPolyzoisI, et al.Re-osseointegration on rough implant surfaces previously coated with bacterial biofilm: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res2008; 19(2): 182–187.
19.
PerssonLGMouhyiJBerglundhT, et al.Carbon dioxide laser and hydrogen peroxide conditioning in the treatment of periimplantitis: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2004; 6(4): 230–238.
20.
KimSHuKSJungUW. Reosseointegration after regenerative surgical therapy using a synthetic bone substitute for peri-implantitis: human autopsy study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2018; 38(4): 585–591.
21.
WohlfahrtJCAassAMRonoldHJ, et al.Micro CT and human histological analysis of a peri-implant osseous defect grafted with porous titanium granules: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2011; 26(1): e9–e14.
22.
PerssonLGAraujoMGBerglundhT, et al.Resolution of peri-implantitis following treatment. an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res1999; 10(3): 195–203.
23.
WandiyantoJVTruongVKAl KobaisiM, et al.The fate of osteoblast-like MG-63 cells on pre-infected bactericidal nanostructured titanium surfaces. Materials (Basel)2019; 12(10): 1575.
ShieMYChangWCWeiLJ, et al.3D printing of cytocompatible water-based light-cured polyurethane with hyaluronic acid for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Materials (Basel)2017; 10(2): 136.
26.
StuaniVTManfrediGGPKondoVAM, et al.The use of additively manufactured scaffolds for treating gingival recession associated with interproximal defects. J 3D Print Med2020; 4(3): 153–165.
27.
EspositoMArdebiliYWorthingtonHV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; (7): CD003815.
28.
SchwarzFSagerMBeckerJ. Peri-implantitis defect model. In: GiannobileWVNevinsM (eds) Osteology guidelines for oral & maxillofacial regeneration: preclinical models for translational research. London: Quintessence Pub Co, 2011, pp. 197–224.
29.
CaiZLiYWangY, et al.Disinfect Porphyromonas gingivalis biofilm on titanium surface with combined application of chlorhexidine and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. Photochem Photobiol2019; 95(3): 839–845.
30.
BenliMPetitCTenenbaumH, et al.In vitro assessment of peri-implantitis treatment procedures: a review. Open Dent J2019; 13(1): 267–273.
31.
TastepeCSLinXDonnetM, et al.Re-establishment of biocompatibility of the in vitro contaminated titanium surface using osteoconductive powders with air-abrasive treatment. J Oral Implantol2018; 44(2): 94–101.
32.
PerssonLGBerglundhTLindheJ, et al.Re-osseointegration after treatment of peri-implantitis at different implant surfaces. an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res2001; 12(6): 595–603.
33.
SennerbyLPerssonLGBerglundhT, et al.Implant stability during initiation and resolution of experimental periimplantitis: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2005; 7(3):136–140.
34.
WetzelACVlassisJCaffesseRG, et al.Attempts to obtain re-osseointegration following experimental peri-implantitis in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res1999; 10(2): 111–119.
35.
AugthunMTinschertJHuberA. In vitro studies on the effect of cleaning methods on different implant surfaces. J Periodontol1998; 69(8): 857–864.
36.
MengelRBunsCEMengelC, et al.An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1998; 13(1): 91–96.
37.
RuhlingAKocherTKreuschJ, et al.Treatment of subgingival implant surfaces with Teflon-coated sonic and ultrasonic scaler tips and various implant curettes. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res1994; 5(1): 19–29.
38.
TomaSBehetsCBrecxMC, et al.In vitro comparison of the efficacy of peri-implantitis treatments on the removal and recolonization of Streptococcus gordonii biofilm on titanium disks. Materials (Basel)2018; 11(12): 2484.
39.
HomiakAWCookPADeBoerJ. Effect of hygiene instrumentation on titanium abutments: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent1992; 67(3): 364–369.
40.
ValderramaPBlansettJAGonzalezMG, et al.Detoxification of implant surfaces affected by peri-implant disease: an overview of non-surgical methods. Open Dent J2014; 8: 77–84.
41.
SchwarzFSahmNMihatovicI, et al.Surgical therapy of advanced ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects: cone-beam computed tomographic and histological analysis. J Clin Periodontol2011; 38(10): 939–949.
42.
NtroukaVHoogenkampMZauraE, et al.The effect of chemotherapeutic agents on titanium-adherent biofilms. Clin Oral Implants Res2011; 22(11): 1227–1234.
43.
GiannelliMChelliniFMargheriM, et al.Effect of chlorhexidine digluconate on different cell types: a molecular and ultrastructural investigation. Toxicol In Vitro2008; 22(2): 308–317.
44.
KozlovskyAArtziZMosesO, et al.Interaction of chlorhexidine with smooth and rough types of titanium surfaces. J Periodontol2006; 77(7): 1194–1200.
