OBJECTIVE: This study aims at applying cDNA microarray analysis in vitro for establishing and comparing the osteogenic properties of dental implants with different surface characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Saos-2 osteoblasts were cultured in bottom-cone tubes in presence of 5 different dental implants with various surface characteristics. Cells adherent to dental implants were detached and RNA purified. The expression of 18,401 genes was tested by cDNA microarray. RESULTS: The number and viability of cells adherent to different dental implants varied but without any significant statistical difference. Conversely, gene expression was revealed to be a more sensitive biomarker being remarkably different in cells adherent to different implants. The 5 dental implants significantly modulated the expression of 14 osteogenic activities mainly including bone morphogenetic proteins, osteomodulin, and osteoprotegerin. CONCLUSION: Despite no significant differences having been found in in vitro cell number and viability, cells adherent to 5 differently surfaced implants showed different gene expression profiles. Thus, to evaluate osteogenesis as related to dental implants, it is important to analyze not only the number of adherent cells but also the activation of genes encoding for osteogenic activities.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims at applying cDNA microarray analysis in vitro for establishing and comparing the osteogenic properties of dental implants with different surface characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Saos-2 osteoblasts were cultured in bottom-cone tubes in presence of 5 different dental implants with various surface characteristics. Cells adherent to dental implants were detached and RNA purified. The expression of 18,401 genes was tested by cDNA microarray. RESULTS: The number and viability of cells adherent to different dental implants varied but without any significant statistical difference. Conversely, gene expression was revealed to be a more sensitive biomarker being remarkably different in cells adherent to different implants. The 5 dental implants significantly modulated the expression of 14 osteogenic activities mainly including bone morphogenetic proteins, osteomodulin, and osteoprotegerin. CONCLUSION: Despite no significant differences having been found in in vitro cell number and viability, cells adherent to 5 differently surfaced implants showed different gene expression profiles. Thus, to evaluate osteogenesis as related to dental implants, it is important to analyze not only the number of adherent cells but also the activation of genes encoding for osteogenic activities.