| Literature DB >> 31766660 |
Maria Antonia Llopis-Grimalt1,2, Andreu Miquel Amengual-Tugores1, Marta Monjo1,2, Joana Maria Ramis1,2.
Abstract
A key factor for dental implant success is a good sealing between the implant surface and both soft (gum) and hard (bone) tissues. Surface nanotopography can modulate cell response through mechanotransduction. The main objective of this research was the development of nanostructured titanium (Ti) surfaces that promote both soft and hard tissue integration with potential application in dental implants. Nanostructured Ti surfaces were developed by electrochemical anodization-nanopores (NPs) and nanonets (NNs)-and characterized by atomic force microscopy, scanning electronic microscopy, and contact angle analysis. In addition, nanoparticle release and apoptosis activation were analyzed on cell culture. NP surfaces showed nanoparticle release, which increased in vitro cell apoptosis. Primary human gingival fibroblasts (hGFs) and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBM-MSCs) were used to test cell adhesion, cytotoxicity, metabolic activity, and differentiation markers. Finally, cell orientation on the different surfaces was analyzed using a phalloidin staining. NN surfaces induced an oriented alignment of both cell types, leading in turn to an improved expression of differentiation markers. Our results suggest that NN structuration of Ti surfaces has great potential to be used for dental implant abutments to improve both soft and hard tissue integration.Entities:
Keywords: implant–tissue integration; mechanotransduction; nanonets; nanopores; nanostructuration
Year: 2019 PMID: 31766660 PMCID: PMC6956383 DOI: 10.3390/nano9121661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Physical characterization of nanostructured surfaces. Representative AFM (atomic force microscopy) and SEM (scanning electron microscopy) images of the different nanostructured titanium surfaces. Scale bars for AFM images represent 10 µm and those for SEM images represent 2.0 µm. NP, nanopore; NN, nanonet.
Physical characterization of the different titanium surfaces. Values represent the mean ± SEM (n = 5). Ra = average roughness; Ssk = surface skewness; Sku = surface kurtosis. Results were statistically compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student’s t-test as post hoc: * p < 0.05 versus Ti; # p < 0.05 versus nanonet (NN) for Ra and Ssk and by Kruskall Wallis for Sku. NP, nanopore.
| Parameter | Ti | NN | NP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porous size (nm) | - | 77.7 ± 0.7 × 47.4 ± 0.5 | 52.9 ± 0.9 |
| Contact Angle (°) | 71.7 ± 8.7 | 84.3 ± 3.8 | 17.7 ± 1.3 |
| Ra (nm) | 28.9 ± 0.7 | 55.8 ± 1.6 * | 31.3 ± 1.9 # |
| Sku | 6.78 ± 2.96 | 2.81 ± 0.13 | 3.74 ± 0.39 |
| Ssk | 0.34 ± 0.24 | 0.07 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.07 |
Figure 2Analysis of particle release from the different surfaces and its effect on biocompatibility. Values represent the mean ± SEM (n = 6; A, B, C) (n = 3; D). (A) Metabolic activity (% vs. Ti) of human gingival fibroblasts (hGFs) cultured with conditioned media. (B) Caspases 3/7 Activity (% vs. Ti) of hGFs cultured with conditioned media. (C) LDH activity (% vs. (+)) of hGFs cultured with conditioned media; hGFs cells cultured with tissue culture plastic (TCP) conditioned media are considered (-) and hGFs cells treated with Triton X-100 1% are considered (+). Results were statistically compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni as post hoc: * p < 0.05 versus Ti for LDH activity and by Kruskall Wallis for metabolic activity and caspases 3/7 activity: * p < 0.05 versus Ti; # p < 0.05 versus NN. (D) Diagram that represents the size distribution and the intensity of the nanoparticles in water cultured with NP surfaces, analyzed with a Zetasizer.
Figure 3Surface bioactivity on hGFs and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBM-MSCs). The graphs on the left (A–D) represent hGFs’ response to NN surface (n ≥ 9) and the graphs on the right (E–H) represent hBM-MSCs’ response to NN surfaces (n ≥ 6). (A,E) Cell adhesion to the surfaces, expressed as % versus Ti. (B,F) Cytotoxicity of cells cultured on the different surfaces, measured as LDH activity; cells cultured on TCP are considered (-) and hGFs/hBM-MSCs treated with Triton X-100 1% are considered (+). Results are expressed as % versus (+). (C,G) Metabolic activity of cells cultured on the different surfaces over the time; results are expressed as % versus Ti. (D) Collagen deposition of hGFs cells cultured on the different surfaces for 14 days; results are expressed as % versus Ti. (H) ALP activity of hBM-MSCs cultured on the different surfaces for 15 days; results are expressed as % versus Ti. Results were statistically compared by Student’s t-test: * p < 0.05 versus Ti.
Figure 4Cell orientation on the nanostructured surfaces. (A) The images in the upper row represent hGFs and hBM-MSCs stained with Phalloidin-FITC (green) and DAPI (blue) (n = 2). Images in the middle row show actin fibers orientation degree with different colours through the surface analysed using ImageJ software. (B) The graphs represent the % of pixels in each orientation angle for both cell types for each surface.