| Literature DB >> 33258065 |
Guilherme Dos Santos Trento1, Jaqueline Suemi Hassumi2, Paula Buzo Frigério2, Ana Paula Farnezi Bassi2, Roberta Okamoto2, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini Gabrielli3, Valfrido Antonio Pereira-Filho3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate through gene expression, immunohistochemical and microtomographic (micro-CT) analysis the response of peri-implant bone tissue around titanium implants with different surface treatments, placed in bone defects filled or not with bone substitute materials. In addition, to investigate the hypothesis that porous-hydrophilic surface induces a faster bone formation.Entities:
Keywords: Bone grafting; Cell viability; Osseointegrated dental implantation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33258065 PMCID: PMC7704835 DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00279-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Implant Dent ISSN: 2198-4034
Fig. 1Materials and methods scheme (flowchart)
Multiple comparisons of trabecular number
| Defect filling × Experimental period | Mean differences | |
|---|---|---|
| HA/TCP:15-BC:15 | 0.48610 | |
| BC:30-BC:15 | − 0.22915 | 0.14657 |
| HA/TCP:30-BC:15 | 0.27665 | |
| BC:30-HA/TCP:15 | − 0.71524 | |
| HA/TCP:30-HA/TCP:15 | − 0.20944 | 0.22277 |
| HA/TCP:30-BC:30 | 0.50580 |
Fig. 2Interactions among implant surfaces, bone substitute material or blood clot and experimental period on trabecular number. Error bars represent the standard deviation around the means
Multiple comparison of trabecular separation
| Defect filling × Experimental period | Mean differences | |
|---|---|---|
| HA/TCP:15-BC:15 | − 0.08421 | 0.14311 |
| BC:30-BC:15 | 0.07431 | 0.25210 |
| HA/TCP:30-BC:15 | − 0.05552 | 0.56954 |
| BC:30-HA/TCP:15 | 0.15852 | |
| HA/TCP:30-HA/TCP:15 | 0.02868 | 0.95560 |
| HA/TCP:30-BC:30 | − 0.12984 |
Fig. 3Interactions among implant surfaces, bone substitute material or blood clot and experimental period on trabecular separation. Error bars represent the standard deviation around the means
Multiple comparisons of trabecular thickness (log)
| Defect filling x Experimental period | Mean differences (log) | |
|---|---|---|
| HA/TCP:15-BC:15 | 0.197130390 | |
| BC:30-BC:15 | 0.034846390 | 0.99212 |
| HA/TCP:30-BC:15 | 0.407547270 | |
| BC:30-HA/TCP:15 | − 0.162284000 | 0.09709 |
| HA/TCP:30-HA/TCP:15 | 0.210416880 | |
| HA/TCP:30-BC:30 | 0.372700880 | < |
Fig. 4Interactions among implant surfaces, bone substitute material or blood clot and experimental period on trabecular thickness. Error bars represent the standard deviation around the means
Fig. 5Interactions among implant surfaces, bone substitute material or blood clot and experimental period on connectivity density. Error bars represent the standard deviation around the means
Representative scores (most frequently observed) of the immunolabeling, categorized as mild/discrete (+), moderate (++), or intense (+++), according to the area/quantity of positive cells for each antigen in all groups in both periods
| RUNX2 | OPN | OCN | OPG | RANKL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 days | |||||
| BC-N | +++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | +++ |
| HA/TCP-N | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| BC-A | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| HA/TCP-A | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| 30 days | |||||
| BC-N | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| HA/TCP-N | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| BC-A | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| HA/TCP-A | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
Fig. 6Representative graphic of immunolabeling of all antibodies. a RUNX2. b OPN. c OCN. d OPG. e RANKL
Fig. 7Labeled samples for all antibodies according to porous-hydrophilic surfaces groups at both periods (a–e). Immunolabeling of proteins (red arrow)
Fig. 8Labeled samples for all antibodies according to porous surfaces groups at both periods (a–e). Immunolabeling of proteins (black arrow)
Fig. 9RUNX2 relative expression
Fig. 10BSP relative expression.