| Literature DB >> 35161039 |
Leonardo P Faverani1, William P P Silva1, Cecília Alves de Sousa2, Gileade Freitas3, Ana Paula F Bassi1, Jamil A Shibli4, Valentim A R Barão5, Adalberto L Rosa3, Cortino Sukotjo6, Wirley G Assunção2.
Abstract
Chemical and topographical surface modifications on dental implants aim to increase the bone surface contact area of the implant and improve osseointegration. This study analyzed the cellular response of undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), derived from senile rats' femoral bone marrow, when cultured on a bioactive coating (by plasma electrolytic oxidation, PEO, with Ca2+ and P5+ ions), a sandblasting followed by acid-etching (SLA) surface, and a machined surface (MSU). A total of 102 Ti-6Al-4V discs were divided into three groups (n = 34). The surface chemistry was analyzed by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). Cell viability assay, gene expression of osteoblastic markers, and mineralized matrix formation were investigated. The cell growth and viability results were higher for PEO vs. MSU surface (p = 0.001). An increase in cell proliferation from 3 to 7 days (p < 0.05) and from 7 to 10 days (p < 0.05) was noted for PEO and SLA surfaces. Gene expression for OSX, ALP, BSP, and OPN showed a statistical significance (p = 0.001) among groups. In addition, the PEO surface showed a higher mineralized matrix bone formation (p = 0.003). In conclusion, MSC from senile female rats cultured on SLA and PEO surfaces showed similar cellular responses and should be considered for future clinical investigations.Entities:
Keywords: dental implants; oxidation; stromal mesenchymal cells; titanium surfaces
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161039 PMCID: PMC8839629 DOI: 10.3390/ma15031094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic representation of the experimental groups and periods of the analyses.
Figure 2Energy dispersive spectroscopy of Ti6Al4V alloy (percentage by weight—wt%) for SLA surface and PEO surface.
Figure 3Cell growth and viability for SLA surface and PEO-treated surface under cell culture conditions at days 3, 7, and 10. SLA surface—* 3 to 7 days and from ** 7 to 10 days (p < 0.05); PEO surface—*** 3 to 7 days (p = 0.01) and from 7 to 10 days (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Real-time PCR analysis to determine the expression of RUNX2, OSX, ALP, BSP, OC, and OPN for the SLA surface and PEO-treated surface under cell culture conditions. * represents a significant difference between surfaces (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Alkaline phosphatase activity for SLA, PEO and MSU surfaces (p = 0.859), showing a similarity in the results.
Figure 6Mineralized matrix formation in the SLA, PEO and MSU surfaces. * represents a significant difference between surfaces (p < 0.05). The bottom images show the mineralized nodule formation on each surface.