Mihai M C Fabricky1, Alin-Gabriel Gabor2,3, Raluca Adriana Milutinovici4, Claudia Geanina Watz5,6, Ștefana Avram6,7, George Drăghici6,8, Ciprian V Mihali9,10, Elena-Alina Moacă6,8, Cristina Adriana Dehelean3,6,8, Atena Galuscan11,12, Roxana Buzatu13, Virgil-Florin Duma14,15, Meda-Lavinia Negrutiu2,3, Cosmin Sinescu2,3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave., 300070 Timisoara, Romania. 2. Department of Prostheses Technology and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Timisoara, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave., 300070 Timisoara, Romania. 3. Research Center in Dental Medicine Using Conventional and Alternative Technologies, Timisoara, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave., 300070 Timisoara, Romania. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave., 300070 Timisoara, Romania. 5. Department of Pharmaceutical Physics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timișoara, Romania. 6. Research Center for Pharmaco-Toxicological Evaluations, Faculty of Pharmacy, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Square No. 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania. 7. Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timișoara, Romania. 8. Departament of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timișoara, Romania. 9. Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad, 86 No., Liviu Rebreanu St., 310414 Arad, Romania. 10. Molecular Research Department, Research and Development Station for Bovine, 32 No., Bodrogului St., 310059 Arad, Romania. 11. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 14A Tudor Vladimirescu Ave., 300173 Timisoara, Romania. 12. Translational and Experimental Clinical Research Center in Oral Health (TEXC-OH), 14A Tudor Vladimirescu Ave., 300173 Timisoara, Romania. 13. Department of Dental Aesthetics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timişoara, Romania. 14. 3OM Optomechatronics Group, Faculty of Engineering, "Aurel Vlaicu" University of Arad, 77 Revolutiei Ave., 310130 Arad, Romania. 15. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic University of Timisoara, 1 Mihai Viteazu Ave., 300006 Timisoara, Romania.
Abstract
The design and development of ceramic structures based on 3D scaffolding as dental bone substitutes has become a topic of great interest in the regenerative dentistry research area. In this regard, the present study focuses on the development of two scaffold-type structures obtained from different commercial dental ceramics by employing the foam replication method. At the same time, the study underlines the physicochemical features and the biological profiles of the newly developed scaffolds, compared to two traditional Cerabone® materials used for bone augmentation, by employing both the in vitro Alamar blue proliferation test at 24, 48 and 96 h poststimulation and the in ovo chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay. The data reveal that the newly developed scaffolds express comparable results with the traditional Cerabone® augmentation masses. In terms of network porosity, the scaffolds show higher pore interconnectivity compared to Cerabone® granules, whereas regarding the biosafety profile, all ceramic samples manifest good biocompatibility on primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs); however only the Cerabone® samples induced proliferation of HGF cells following exposure to concentrations of 5 and 10 µg/mL. Additionally, none of the test samples induce irritative activity on the vascular developing plexus. Thus, based on the current results, the preliminary biosecurity profile of ceramic scaffolds supports the usefulness for further testing of high relevance for their possible clinical dental applications.
The design and development of ceramic structures based on 3D scaffolding as dentpan class="Chemical">al bone substitutes has become a topic of great interest in the regenerative dentistry research area. In this regard, the present study focuses on the development of two scaffold-type structures obtained from different commercial dental ceramics by employing the foam replication method. At the same time, the study underlines the physicochemical features and the biological profiles of the newly developed scaffolds, compared to two traditional Cerabone® materials used for bone augmentation, by employing both the in vitro Alamar blue proliferation test at 24, 48 and 96 h poststimulation and the in ovo chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay. The data reveal that the newly developed scaffolds express comparable results with the traditional Cerabone® augmentation masses. In terms of network porosity, the scaffolds show higher pore interconnectivity compared to Cerabone® granules, whereas regarding the biosafety profile, all ceramic samples manifest good biocompatibility on primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs); however only the Cerabone® samples induced proliferation of HGF cells following exposure to concentrations of 5 and 10 µg/mL. Additionally, none of the test samples induce irritative activity on the vascular developing plexus. Thus, based on the current results, the preliminary biosecurity profile of ceramic scaffolds supports the usefulness for further testing of high relevance for their possible clinical dental applications.
Authors: Enrico F Gherlone; Paolo Capparé; Simona Tecco; Elisabetta Polizzi; Giuseppe Pantaleo; Giorgio Gastaldi; Maria Gabriella Grusovin Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Alin Gabriel Gabor; Virgil-Florin Duma; Mihai M C Fabricky; Liviu Marsavina; Anca Tudor; Cosmin Vancea; Petru Negrea; Cosmin Sinescu Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 3.748