期刊文献+

Osteoblast integration of dental implant materials after challenge by sub-gingival pathogens: a co-culture study in vitro 被引量:1

Osteoblast integration of dental implant materials after challenge by sub-gingival pathogens: a co-culture study in vitro
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Sub-gingival anaerobic pathogens can colonize an implant surface to compromise osseointegration of dental implants once the soft tissue seal around the neck of an implant is broken. In vitro evaluations of implant materials are usually done in monoculture studies involving either tissue integration or bacterial colonization. Co-culture models, in which tissue cells and bacteria battle simultaneously for estate on an implant surface, have been demonstrated to provide a better in vitro mimic of the clinical situation. Here we aim to compare the surface coverage by U2OS osteoblasts cells prior to and after challenge by two anaerobic sub-gingival pathogens in a co-culture model on differently modified titanium (Ti), titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloys and zirconia surfaces. Monoculture studies with either U2OS osteoblasts or bacteria were also carried out and indicated significant differences in biofilm formation between the implant materials, but interactions with U2OS osteoblasts were favourable on all materials. Adhering U2OS osteoblasts cells, however, were significantly more displaced from differently modified Ti surfaces by challenging sub-gingival pathogens than from TiZr alloys and zirconia variants. Combined with previous work employing a co-culture model consisting of human gingival fibroblasts and supra-gingival oral bacteria, results point to a different material selection to stimulate the formation of a soft tissue seal as compared to preservation of osseointegration under the unsterile conditions of the oral cavity. Sub-gingival anaerobic pathogens can colonize an implant surface to compromise osseointegration of dental implants once the soft tissue seal around the neck of an implant is broken. In vitro evaluations of implant materials are usually done in monoculture studies involving either tissue integration or bacterial colonization. Co-culture models, in which tissue cells and bacteria battle simultaneously for estate on an implant surface, have been demonstrated to provide a better in vitro mimic of the clinical situation. Here we aim to compare the surface coverage by U2OS osteoblasts cells prior to and after challenge by two anaerobic sub-gingival pathogens in a co-culture model on differently modified titanium (Ti), titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloys and zirconia surfaces. Monoculture studies with either U2OS osteoblasts or bacteria were also carried out and indicated significant differences in biofilm formation between the implant materials, but interactions with U2OS osteoblasts were favourable on all materials. Adhering U2OS osteoblasts cells, however, were significantly more displaced from differently modified Ti surfaces by challenging sub-gingival pathogens than from TiZr alloys and zirconia variants. Combined with previous work employing a co-culture model consisting of human gingival fibroblasts and supra-gingival oral bacteria, results point to a different material selection to stimulate the formation of a soft tissue seal as compared to preservation of osseointegration under the unsterile conditions of the oral cavity.
出处 《International Journal of Oral Science》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2015年第4期250-258,共9页 国际口腔科学杂志(英文版)
关键词 biofilm CO-CULTURE dental implant OSTEOBLASTS sub-gingival pathogens titanium-zirconium alloy biofilm co-culture dental implant osteoblasts sub-gingival pathogens titanium-zirconium alloy
  • 相关文献

参考文献46

  • 1Grainger DW, Van der Mei HC, Jutte PC et al. Critical factors in the translation of improved antimicrobial strategies for medical implants and devices. Biomaterials 2013; 34(37): 9237-9243.
  • 2Busscher H J, Van der Mei HC, Subbiahdoss Get al. Biomaterial-associated infection: locating the finish line in the race for the surface. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4(153): 153rv10.
  • 3Gristina AG. Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 1987; 237(4822): 1588-1595.
  • 4Fletcher N, Sofianos D, 8erkes MB etaL Prevention of perioperative infection. J Bone Joint SurgAm 2007; 89(7): 1605-1618.
  • 5Grabe M, Botto H, Cek Met al. Preoperative assessment of the patient and risk factors for infectious complications and tentative classification of surgical field contamina- tion of urological procedures. WorldJ Urol2012; 30(1): 39-50.
  • 6Zimmerli W. Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: prosthetic-joint-associated infections. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumato12006; 20(6): 1045-1063.
  • 7Sharaf B, Jandali-Rifai M, Susarla Set al. Do perioperative antibiotics decrease implant failure? J Oral Maxillofac Sure 2011; 69: 2345-2350.
  • 8Gynther GW, Kondell PA, Mober8 LE et al. Dental implant installation without antibiotic prophylaxis. Oral Sure Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85: 509-511.
  • 9Yue C, Zhao B, Ren Y etal. The implant infection paradox: why do some succeed when others fail? Eur Cell Mater 2015; 29:303-310.
  • 10Van Brakel R, Meijer G J, Verhoeven JW et aL Soft tissue response to zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo within-subject comparison. J Cfin Periodontol 2012; 39(10): 995-1001.

同被引文献1

引证文献1

二级引证文献11

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部