The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of alkaline phosphatase activity of MC3T3-E1 cells cultured on different Ti surfaces: modified sandblasted with large grit and acid-etched (MSLA), laser-treated, and laser and acid-treated Ti surfaces

  • Li, Lin-Jie (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, So-Nam (CSM IMPLANT Surface Treatment Institute) ;
  • Cho, Sung-Am (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2016.02.23
  • Accepted : 2016.06.03
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. In this study, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant surface treatment on cell differentiation of osteoblast cells. For this purpose, three surfaces were compared: (1) a modified SLA (MSLA: sand-blasted with large grit, acid-etched, and immersed in 0.9% NaCl), (2) a laser treatment (LT: laser treatment) titanium surface and (3) a laser and acid-treated (LAT: laser treatment, acid-etched) titanium surface. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The MSLA surfaces were considered as the control group, and LT and LAT surfaces as test groups. Alkaline phosphatase expression (ALP) was used to quantify osteoblastic differentiation of MC3T3-E1 cell. Surface roughness was evaluated by a contact profilometer (URFPAK-SV; Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan) and characterized by two parameters: mean roughness (Ra) and maximum peak-to-valley height (Rt). RESULTS. Scanning electron microscope revealed that MSLA (control group) surface was not as rough as LT, LAT surface (test groups). Alkaline phosphatase expression, the measure of osteoblastic differentiation, and total ALP expression by surface-adherent cells were found to be highest at 21 days for all three surfaces tested (P<.05). Furthermore, ALP expression levels of MSLA and LAT surfaces were significantly higher than expression levels of LT surface-adherent cells at 7, 14, and 21 days, respectively (P<.05). However, ALP expression levels between MSLA and LAT surface were equal at 7, 14, and 21 days (P>.05). CONCLUSION. This study suggested that MSLA and LAT surfaces exhibited more favorable environment for osteoblast differentiation when compared with LT surface, the results that are important for implant surface modification studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Sammons RL, Lumbikanonda N, Gross M, Cantzler P. Comparison of osteoblast spreading on microstructured dental implant surfaces and cell behaviour in an explant model of osseointegration. A scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:657-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01168.x
  2. Zhang F, Yang GL, He FM, Zhang LJ, Zhao SF. Cell response of titanium implant with a roughened surface containing titanium hydride: an in vitro study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1131-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.12.027
  3. Alfarsi MA, Hamlet SM, Ivanovski S. Titanium surface hydrophilicity modulates the human macrophage inflammatory cytokine response. J Biomed Mater Res A 2014;102:60-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34666
  4. Gu YX, Du J, Si MS, Mo JJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. The roles of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway in regulating MC3T3-E1 preosteoblast proliferation and differentiation on SLA and SLActive titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 2013;101:748-54.
  5. Lai HC, Zhuang LF, Liu X, Wieland M, Zhang ZY, Zhang ZY. The influence of surface energy on early adherent events of osteoblast on titanium substrates. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;93:289-96.
  6. Bang SM, Moon HJ, Kwon YD, Yoo JY, Pae A, Kwon IK. Osteoblastic and osteoclastic differentiation on SLA and hydrophilic modified SLA titanium surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:831-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12146
  7. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Olshanska N, de Wild M, Wieland M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006;76:323-34.
  8. Forsgren J, Paz MD, Leon B, Engqvist H. Laser induced surface structuring and ion conversion in the surface oxide of titanium: possible implications for the wetability of laser treated implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2013;24:11-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-012-4780-6
  9. Rong M, Zhou L, Gou Z, Zhu A, Zhou D. The early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched dental implants surface: an experimental study in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009;20:1721-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-009-3730-4
  10. Khadra M, Lyngstadaas SP, Haanaes HR, Mustafa K. Determining optimal dose of laser therapy for attachment and proliferation of human oral fibroblasts cultured on titanium implant material. J Biomed Mater Res A 2005;73:55-62.
  11. Khadra M, Kasem N, Lyngstadaas SP, Haanaes HR, Mustafa K. Laser therapy accelerates initial attachment and subsequent behaviour of human oral fibroblasts cultured on titanium implant material. A scanning electron microscope and histomorphometric analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:168-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01092.x
  12. Zhang EW, Wang YB, Shuai KG, Gao F, Bai YJ, Cheng Y, Xiong XL, Zheng YF, Wei SC. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of SLA titanium surfaces with further alkali or hydrogen peroxide and heat treatment. Biomed Mater 2011;6:025001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/6/2/025001
  13. Owen TA, Aronow M, Shalhoub V, Barone LM, Wilming L, Tassinari MS, Kennedy MB, Pockwinse S, Lian JB, Stein GS. Progressive development of the rat osteoblast phenotype in vitro: reciprocal relationships in expression of genes associated with osteoblast proliferation and differentiation during formation of the bone extracellular matrix. J Cell Physiol 1990;143:420-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1041430304
  14. Chen WC, Chen YS, Ko CL, Lin Y, Kuo TH, Kuo HN. Interaction of progenitor bone cells with different surface modifications of titanium implant. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2014;37:305-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.01.022
  15. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Eichler M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Wetting behavior of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1256-66.
  16. Le Guehennec L, Lopez-Heredia MA, Enkel B, Weiss P, Amouriq Y, Layrolle P. Osteoblastic cell behaviour on different titanium implant surfaces. Acta Biomater 2008;4:535-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.12.002
  17. Hughes FJ, Collyer J, Stanfield M, Goodman SA. The effects of bone morphogenetic protein-2, -4, and -6 on differentiation of rat osteoblast cells in vitro. Endocrinology 1995;136:2671-7. https://doi.org/10.1210/endo.136.6.7750491
  18. Lincks J, Boyan BD, Blanchard CR, Lohmann CH, Liu Y, Cochran DL, Dean DD, Schwartz Z. Response of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials 1998;19:2219-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00144-6
  19. Coombe AR, Ho CT, Darendeliler MA, Hunter N, Philips JR, Chapple CC, Yum LW. The effects of low level laser irradiation on osteoblastic cells. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:3-14. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.040102.x
  20. Cho SA, Jung SK. A removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials 2003;24:4859-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00377-6
  21. Chen WC, Lo Y, Chen HS. Effects of Ti surface treatments with silane and arginylglycylaspartic acid peptide on bone cell progenitors. Odontology 2015;103:322-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-014-0169-y
  22. Souza FA, Queiroz TP, Guastaldi AC, Garcia-Junior IR, Magro-Filho O, Nishioka RS, Sisti KE, Sonoda CK. Comparative in vivo study of commercially pure Ti implants with surfaces modified by laser with and without silicate deposition: biomechanical and scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013;101:76-84.
  23. Gyorgyey A, Ungvari K, Kecskemeti G, Kopniczky J, Hopp B, Oszko A, Pelsoczi I, Rakonczay Z, Nagy K, Turzo K. Attachment and proliferation of human osteoblast-like cells (MG-63) on laser-ablated titanium implant material. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33:4251-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2013.06.020
  24. Guo Z, Zhou L, Rong M, Ding J, Zhu A, Li S, Lu H. Bone augmentation in a titanium cap with a porous surface modified by microarc oxidation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:767-73. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2208

Cited by

  1. Behavior of Human Osteoblast Cells Cultured on Titanium Discs in Relation to Surface Roughness and Presence of Melatonin vol.18, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18040823
  2. Effects of Titanium Micro-Nanopermeable Structures on Osteogenic Differentiation vol.2018, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6468246
  3. Suppression of Notch Signaling in Osteoclasts Improves Bone Regeneration and Healing vol.37, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24384
  4. Amine Derivative from the Aerial Part of Spilanthes acmella Murr. and their Alkaline Phosphatase Activity vol.10, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2174/2210315509666190807161413
  5. Dual delivery of platelet‐derived growth factor and bone morphogenetic factor‐6 on titanium surface to enhance the early period of implant osseointegration vol.55, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12756
  6. Biocompatibility and Cellular Behavior of TiNbTa Alloy with Adapted Rigidity for the Replacement of Bone Tissue vol.11, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/met11010130
  7. Synergistic Effect of PVDF-Coated PCL-TCP Scaffolds and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Osteogenesis vol.22, pp.12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126438
  8. Fabrication of bioactive glass coating on pure titanium by sol-dip method: Dental applications vol.40, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2020-323