Two Gingival Cell Lines Response to Different Dental Implant Abutment Materials: An In Vitro Study

Overview

Journal Dent J (Basel)

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2022 Oct 26

PMID 36286002

Authors

Muataz A Osman

Evgeny Kushnerev

Rasha A Alamoush

Kevin G Seymour

Julian M Yates

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the response of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and human gingival keratinocytes (HGKC) towards different dental implant abutment materials. Methods: Five materials were investigated: (1) titanium (Ti), (2) titanium nitride (TiN), (3) cobalt-chromium (CoCr), (4) zirconia (ZrO2), and (5) modified polyether ether ketone (m-PEEK). Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and seeded in accordance with the protocol of their supplier. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using colourimetric viability and cytotoxicity assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05 for all tests). Results: There was a statistically significant difference in cell proliferation of HGKC and HGFB cells in contact with different abutment materials at different time points, with no significant interaction between different materials. There was a significant effect on cell proliferation and cytotoxicity with different exposure times (p < 0.0001) for each material. Cell proliferation rates were comparable for both cell lines at the beginning of the study, however, HGFB showed higher proliferation rates for all materials at day 10 with better proliferation activities with ZrO and m-PEEK (40.27%) and (48.38%) respectively. HGKC showed significant interactions (p < 0.0001) in cytotoxicity between different materials. Conclusion: The present in vitro assessment investigated the biocompatibility of different abutment materials with soft tissue cells (HGFB and HGKC). The findings suggest that m-PEEK and TiN are biologically compatible materials with human cells that represent the soft tissue and can be considered as alternative implant abutment materials to Ti and ZrO2, especially when the aesthetic is of concern.

Citing Articles

A Preliminary Stability Assessment of Three State-of-the-Art CAD/CAM Materials Under Human Gingival Cell Culture.

Gatin E, Iordache S, Iordache A, Totan Ripsvki A, Moldovan A, Luculescu C Polymers (Basel). 2025; 17(2).

PMID: 39861293 PMC: 11769571. DOI: 10.3390/polym17020221.

Biomaterials science and surface engineering strategies for dental peri-implantitis management.

Yu Y, Lu Y, Zhang T, Zheng Y, Liu Y, Xia D Mil Med Res. 2024; 11(1):29.

PMID: 38741175 PMC: 11089802. DOI: 10.1186/s40779-024-00532-9.

References

Najeeb S, Zafar M, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F . Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 60(1):12-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001. View

Kim Y, Ko Y, Kye S, Yang S . Human gingival fibroblast (HGF-1) attachment and proliferation on several abutment materials with various colors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(4):969-75. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3704. View

Al Farawati F, Nakaparksin P . What is the Optimal Material for Implant Prosthesis?. Dent Clin North Am. 2019; 63(3):515-530. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.02.002. View

Ramenzoni L, Attin T, Schmidlin P . In Vitro Effect of Modified Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implant Abutments on Human Gingival Epithelial Keratinocytes Migration and Proliferation. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12(9). PMC: 6539123. DOI: 10.3390/ma12091401. View

van Brakel R, Cune M, van Winkelhoff A, de Putter C, Verhoeven J, van der Reijden W . Early bacterial colonization and soft tissue health around zirconia and titanium abutments: an in vivo study in man. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(6):571-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02005.x. View

Peng T, Lin D, Mine Y, Tasi C, Li P, Shih Y . Biofilm Formation on the Surface of (Poly)Ether-Ether-Ketone and In Vitro Antimicrobial Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy on Peri-Implant Mucositis. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(6). PMC: 8003156. DOI: 10.3390/polym13060940. View

Pabst A, Walter C, Bell A, Weyhrauch M, Schmidtmann I, Scheller H . Influence of CAD/CAM zirconia for implant-abutment manufacturing on gingival fibroblasts and oral keratinocytes. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 20(5):1101-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1598-x. View

Brodbeck U . The ZiReal Post: A new ceramic implant abutment. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003; 15(1):10-23; discussion 24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2003.tb00278.x. View

Annunziata M, Oliva A, Basile M, Giordano M, Mazzola N, Rizzo A . The effects of titanium nitride-coating on the topographic and biological features of TPS implant surfaces. J Dent. 2011; 39(11):720-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.003. View

10.

Pendegrass C, Lancashire H, Fontaine C, Chan G, Hosseini P, Blunn G . Intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prostheses versus dental implants: a comparison between keratinocyte and gingival epithelial cell adhesion in vitro. Eur Cell Mater. 2015; 29:237-49. DOI: 10.22203/ecm.v029a18. View

11.

Mate Sanchez de Val J, Gomez-Moreno G, Perez-Albacete Martinez C, Ramirez-Fernandez M, Granero-Marin J, Gehrke S . Peri-implant tissue behavior around non-titanium material: Experimental study in dogs. Ann Anat. 2016; 206:104-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2016.03.005. View

12.

Sawase T, Yoshida K, Taira Y, Kamada K, Atsuta M, Baba K . Abrasion resistance of titanium nitride coatings formed on titanium by ion-beam-assisted deposition. J Oral Rehabil. 2005; 32(2):151-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01382.x. View

13.

Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G . An in vitro evaluation of ZiReal abutments with hexagonal connection: in original state and following abutment preparation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(1):108-14. View

14.

Santing H, Meijer H, Raghoebar G, Ozcan M . Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: a comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over PEEK abutments and solid titanium abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 14(6):882-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00322.x. View

15.

Ma R, Tang T . Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci. 2014; 15(4):5426-45. PMC: 4013573. DOI: 10.3390/ijms15045426. View

16.

Grossner-Schreiber B, Herzog M, Hedderich J, Duck A, Hannig M, Griepentrog M . Focal adhesion contact formation by fibroblasts cultured on surface-modified dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(6):736-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01277.x. View

17.

Olivares-Navarrete R, Gittens R, Schneider J, Hyzy S, Haithcock D, Ullrich P . Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone. Spine J. 2012; 12(3):265-72. PMC: 3618467. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.002. View

18.

Gatewood R, Cobb C, Killoy W . Microbial colonization on natural tooth structure compared with smooth and plasma-sprayed dental implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993; 4(2):53-64. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040201.x. View

19.

Peng T, Shih Y, Hsia S, Wang T, Li P, Lin D . In Vitro Assessment of the Cell Metabolic Activity, Cytotoxicity, Cell Attachment, and Inflammatory Reaction of Human Oral Fibroblasts on Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implant-Abutment. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(17). PMC: 8433877. DOI: 10.3390/polym13172995. View

20.

Mengel R, Meer C, Flores-de-Jacoby L . The treatment of uncoated and titanium nitride-coated abutments with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(2):232-8. View