BACKGROUND: The role played by the internal basal lamina (IBL) and hemidesmosomes between an implant and the peri-implant epithelium (PIE) in the adherence of the epithelium to the implant is controversial. This study used rat maxilla implantation models to clarify the ultrastructure of the PIE-implant interface. METHODS: Ti-6Al-4V implants were inserted either immediately or 2 weeks after the extraction of the upper left first molar of 6- or 4-week-old rats, respectively. The junctional epithelium (JE) of the upper right molars in the same animals was used as a control. Four weeks after implantation, the animals were sacrificed to prepare specimens for light and immunoelectron microscopy. RESULTS: Under light microscopy, the PIE appeared to attach to the implant surface. Ultrastructurally, IBL, consisting of the lamina densa and lamina lucida, and hemidesmosomes were formed only in the lower region, and rarely in the middle region, of the PIE-implant interface. In control teeth, the IBL and hemidesmosomes formed throughout the dento-JE interface. Laminin-1 was found in the IBL and also in the vesicles and vacuoles of the PIE and JE cells. Statistical analysis showed that there was also a significant difference in the amount of IBL between the PIE-implant and dento-JE interfaces. CONCLUSIONS: PIE attached to the implant via hemidesmosomes and IBL in the lower region of the PIE-implant interface. Although PIE cells may secrete laminin-1, which contributes to epidermal cell adhesion, the PIE which attaches to implants only in the lower region of the interface is considered to be the poorly adhered epithelium.
BACKGROUND: The role played by the internal basal lamina (IBL) and hemidesmosomes between an implant and the peri-implant epithelium (PIE) in the adherence of the epithelium to the implant is controversial. This study used rat maxilla implantation models to clarify the ultrastructure of the PIE-implant interface. METHODS: Ti-6Al-4V implants were inserted either immediately or 2 weeks after the extraction of the upper left first molar of 6- or 4-week-old rats, respectively. The junctional epithelium (JE) of the upper right molars in the same animals was used as a control. Four weeks after implantation, the animals were sacrificed to prepare specimens for light and immunoelectron microscopy. RESULTS: Under light microscopy, the PIE appeared to attach to the implant surface. Ultrastructurally, IBL, consisting of the lamina densa and lamina lucida, and hemidesmosomes were formed only in the lower region, and rarely in the middle region, of the PIE-implant interface. In control teeth, the IBL and hemidesmosomes formed throughout the dento-JE interface. Laminin-1 was found in the IBL and also in the vesicles and vacuoles of the PIE and JE cells. Statistical analysis showed that there was also a significant difference in the amount of IBL between the PIE-implant and dento-JE interfaces. CONCLUSIONS: PIE attached to the implant via hemidesmosomes and IBL in the lower region of the PIE-implant interface. Although PIE cells may secrete laminin-1, which contributes to epidermal cell adhesion, the PIE which attaches to implants only in the lower region of the interface is considered to be the poorly adhered epithelium.
Authors: Vasiliki P Koidou; Prokopios P Argyris; Erik P Skoe; Juliana Mota Siqueira; Xi Chen; Lei Zhang; James E Hinrichs; Massimo Costalonga; Conrado Aparicio Journal: Biomater Sci Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 6.843