» Articles » PMID: 28906501

Impact of Cleaning Procedures on Adhesion of Living Cells to Three Abutment Materials

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2017 Sep 15
PMID 28906501
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To test the adhesion properties of live gingival fibroblasts to three different implant abutment materials after five different cleaning procedures.

Materials And Methods: Highly polished discs of lithium disilicate (LS), zirconium dioxide (Zr), and titanium alloy (Ti) were fabricated. The specimens were cleaned by one of five different methods: steam (S), argon plasma (AP), ultrasound and disinfection (UD), ultrasound and sterilization in an autoclave (UA), or photofunctionalization with high-intensity ultraviolet light (PF). Cell detachment force (adhesion) was measured by single-cell force spectroscopy, which is a method to quantify cell adhesion at the single cell level. Data were statistically analyzed using parametric tests (analysis of variance [ANOVA], t tests).

Results: Cell detachment forces in the low nN regime were recorded in all experiments. Significant differences in cell adhesion on the different materials were found as a function of the cleaning method (P ≤ .0001). For LS abutments, no significant differences between the cleaning methods could be found (P > .05). For Zr specimens, the AP method showed the highest cell detachment forces, followed by UD, PF, S, and UA (S/UD, S/UA, S/PF, AP/UD, and UD/PF were not significantly different from each other). For Ti abutments, UD showed the highest cell detachment forces, followed by S, AP, and UA/PF (S/UD, S/UA, S/PF, AP/U, and UA/PF were not significantly different from each other).

Conclusion: All cleaning methods provided comparable cell detachment forces for LS abutments. AP/PF or ultrasonic cleaning were the most suitable methods for strong cell adhesion on Zr. UD provided the best cell adhesion for Ti.

Citing Articles

Vacuum Plasma Treatment Device for Enhancing Fibroblast Activity on Machined and Rough Titanium Surfaces.

Canullo L, Genova T, Chinigo G, Iacono R, Pesce P, Menini M Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(3).

PMID: 38534295 PMC: 10968932. DOI: 10.3390/dj12030071.


Influence of exposure of customized dental implant abutments to different cleaning procedures: an in vitro study using AI-assisted SEM/EDS analysis.

Hofmann P, Kunz A, Schmidt F, Beuer F, Duddeck D Int J Implant Dent. 2023; 9(1):33.

PMID: 37730937 PMC: 10511398. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00498-8.


Biocompatibility, Surface Morphology, and Bacterial Load of Dental Implant Abutments following Decontamination Protocols: An In-Vitro Study.

Sharon E, Pietrokovski Y, Engel I, Assali R, Houri-Haddad Y, Beyth N Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(11).

PMID: 37297212 PMC: 10254387. DOI: 10.3390/ma16114080.


Microbiological cleaning and disinfection efficacy of a three-stage ultrasonic processing protocol for CAD-CAM implant abutments.

Gehrke P, Riebe O, Fischer C, Weinhold O, Dhom G, Sader R J Adv Prosthodont. 2022; 14(5):273-284.

PMID: 36452367 PMC: 9672693. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2022.14.5.273.


Clinical Applications of Photofunctionalization on Dental Implant Surfaces: A Narrative Review.

Chang L J Clin Med. 2022; 11(19).

PMID: 36233693 PMC: 9571244. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195823.