The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility.

Giulia Brunello, Kathrin Becker, Nicole Rauch, Frank Schwarz, Jürgen Becker
{"title":"The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility.","authors":"Giulia Brunello, Kathrin Becker, Nicole Rauch, Frank Schwarz, Jürgen Becker","doi":"10.1111/cid.13417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To in vitro investigate the effect of different implant surface decontamination methods and treatment storing conditions on implant surface morphology and cell viability.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Titanium disks with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface (Promote, PRO) were treated with diamond polishing brushes (BRUSH), nickel-titanium brushes (NITI), or phenol and sulfuric acid-gel (GEL). The disks were stored in saline (-S) or left exposed to air overnight (-A). Untreated (PRO) and machined (MACHINED) disks were used as controls. GEL samples were treated for the 60 s, while the operative time was recorded for BRUSH and NITI. The samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM), surface roughness measurements, and cell viability (SaOS-2 cells, 7 days) assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The operative time was shorter for NITI than for BRUSH (p = 0.017). The original surface morphology (PRO) was not altered in the GEL group, in contrast with what was observed for BRUSH and NITI. The type of storage did not influence the surface morphology. No significant differences in Sa and Sz were observed among the groups, except for MACHINED, which presented lower Sa values (p < 0.05). Cells were able to proliferate on all surfaces. NITI-S showed significantly higher cell viability compared to all groups (p ≤ 0.001), except for NITI-A and MACHINED. Among the treated groups, only one additional significant difference was found, as NITI-A performed better than GEL-S.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of the investigated protocols compromised the cytocompatibility of the titanium dental implant surface. The best results were registered in the NITI group when the samples were stored in saline. Future studies should confirm the effectiveness of the proposed methods in removing bacterial biofilm from contaminated implant surfaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To in vitro investigate the effect of different implant surface decontamination methods and treatment storing conditions on implant surface morphology and cell viability.

Materials and methods: Titanium disks with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface (Promote, PRO) were treated with diamond polishing brushes (BRUSH), nickel-titanium brushes (NITI), or phenol and sulfuric acid-gel (GEL). The disks were stored in saline (-S) or left exposed to air overnight (-A). Untreated (PRO) and machined (MACHINED) disks were used as controls. GEL samples were treated for the 60 s, while the operative time was recorded for BRUSH and NITI. The samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM), surface roughness measurements, and cell viability (SaOS-2 cells, 7 days) assessment.

Results: The operative time was shorter for NITI than for BRUSH (p = 0.017). The original surface morphology (PRO) was not altered in the GEL group, in contrast with what was observed for BRUSH and NITI. The type of storage did not influence the surface morphology. No significant differences in Sa and Sz were observed among the groups, except for MACHINED, which presented lower Sa values (p < 0.05). Cells were able to proliferate on all surfaces. NITI-S showed significantly higher cell viability compared to all groups (p ≤ 0.001), except for NITI-A and MACHINED. Among the treated groups, only one additional significant difference was found, as NITI-A performed better than GEL-S.

Conclusions: None of the investigated protocols compromised the cytocompatibility of the titanium dental implant surface. The best results were registered in the NITI group when the samples were stored in saline. Future studies should confirm the effectiveness of the proposed methods in removing bacterial biofilm from contaminated implant surfaces.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
镍钛刷、抛光刷和化学剂对牙科种植体表面形态和细胞相容性的影响
目的:体外研究不同种植体表面净化方法和处理储存条件对种植体表面形态和细胞活力的影响:体外研究不同种植体表面去污方法和处理储存条件对种植体表面形态和细胞活力的影响:用金刚石抛光刷(BRUSH)、镍钛刷(NITI)或苯酚和硫酸凝胶(GEL)对表面喷砂和酸蚀的钛盘(Promote,PRO)进行处理。磁盘储存在生理盐水中(-S)或暴露在空气中过夜(-A)。未经处理(PRO)和机加工(MACHINED)的磁盘用作对照组。GEL 样品的处理时间为 60 秒,而 BRUSH 和 NITI 则记录了操作时间。对样品进行扫描电子显微镜(SEM)、表面粗糙度测量和细胞存活率(SaOS-2 细胞,7 天)评估:结果:NITI 的手术时间比 BRUSH 短(p = 0.017)。GEL 组的原始表面形态(PRO)没有改变,这与 BRUSH 和 NITI 观察到的情况相反。储存类型对表面形态没有影响。除 MACHINED 组的 Sa 值较低外,其他各组的 Sa 和 Sz 均无明显差异(p 结论):所有研究方案都不会影响钛种植体表面的细胞相容性。将样本保存在生理盐水中时,NITI 组的结果最好。未来的研究应确认所建议的方法在清除受污染种植体表面的细菌生物膜方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of Photogrammetry, Intraoral Scanning, and Conventional Impression for Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study. The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility. Transitional implants in computer-assisted implant surgery and fixed complete-arch provisionalization: A retrospective case series. Budget Impact Analysis: Digital Workflow Significantly Reduces Costs of Implant Supported Overdentures (IODs). Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Hydrophilic Implants: A 10-Year Study in a Specialist Private Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1