Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2014 Jul;52(3):211-221. Korean.
    Published online Jul 30, 2014.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2014.52.3.211
    Copyright © 2014 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    Effects of SLA surface treated with NaOH on surface characteristics and response of osteoblast-like cell

    Jin-Chul Park,1,a Joo-Hyeun Kim,2,a Eun-Sook Kang,3 Jae-Jun Ryu,4 and Jung-Bo Huh2
      • 1Graduate School of Clinical Dental Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
      • 2Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
      • 3Department of Prosthodontics, In-Je University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.
      • 4Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Dentistry, Korea University Anam Hospital,Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Jae-Jun Ryu. Department of Dentistry, Korea University Anam Hospital, 73, Inchon-ro, Seomgbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-705, Republic of Korea. +82 29205423: Email: koprosth@unitel.co.kr
      Corresponding Author: Jung-Bo Huh. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Beomeo-ri, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan, 626-870, Republic of Korea. +82 55 360 5130, Email: neoplasia96@hanmail.net

      aThese authors contributed equally to this work.
    Received June 02, 2014; Revised June 30, 2014; Accepted July 01, 2014.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface characteristics and response of osteoblast-like cell at SLA surface treated with NaOH.

    Materials and methods

    Three kinds of specimens were fabricated for the experiment groups. Control group was a machined surface, SLA group was a conventionally SLA treated surface, and SLA/NaOH gorup was SLA surface treated with NaOH. To evaluate the surface characteristics, the surface elemental composition (XPS), surface roughness and surface contact angle were evaluated in each group. And the cytotoxicity, cell adhesion, cell proliferation and ATP activity of osteoblast-like cells (MG-63 cells) were compared in each group for evaluatation of the cell responses. Statistical comparisons between groups were carried out via one-way ANOVA using the SPSS software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA), and then performed multiple comparisons. The differences were considered statistically significant at P<.05.

    Results

    SLA surface treated with NaOH (SLA / NaOH group) was changed to hydrophilic surface. All groups did not show the cytotoxicity to the MG-63. In cell adhesion studies, SLA / NaOH group showed the higher degree of adhesion than anothers (P<.05), Up to 7 days of incubation, the proliferation was showed the increasing tendency in all groups but SLA / NaOH group showed the highest cell proliferation between the three groups (P<.05). At 7 days of incubation, there was no difference in ALP activities between the three groups, but at 14 days, SLA / NaOH group showed significant increase in ALP activities (P<.05).

    Conclusion

    In this study, SLA surface treated with NaOH promoted cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation. It means that SLA/NaOH group is possible to promote osseointegration of implants.

    Keywords
    SLA surface; NaOH; hydrophilic; MG-63 cell; Cell culture

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Non-Contact 3D Video Measuring images of each group. (A) Machined, (B) SLA, (C) SLA/NaOH group.

    Fig. 2
    scanning electron microscope (Hitachi S-4700 SEM, Japan) images of each group (×2000 magnification). (A) Machined, (B) SLA, (C) SLA/NaOH group.

    Fig. 3
    Contact angle of each group. (A) machined group, (B) SLA group, (C) SLA/NaOH group.

    Fig. 4
    Cytotoxicity test of machined group, SLA group and SLA/NaOH group against osteoblasts (MG-63 cells).

    Fig. 5
    Live/dead assay for machined group, SLA group and SLA/NaOH group against osteoblasts (MG-63 cells).

    Fig. 6
    Cells adhesion and spread of MG-63 cells on machined group, SLA group and SLA/NaOH group after 1 day.

    Fig. 7
    Cells adhesion of MG-63 cells on machined group, SLA group and SLA/NaOH group after 3 h.

    Fig. 8
    Cell proliferation of osteoblast-like cells (MG-63 cells) grown on machined group, SLA group and SLA/NaOH group after day 3, and day 7.

    Fig. 9
    ALP activity of osteoblast-like cells (MG-63 cells) cultured on machined group, SLA group and SLA/NaOH group after 7 and 14 day.

    Tables

    Table 1
    The surface elemental compositions of each group analyzed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

    References

      1. Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81–100.
      1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387–416.
      1. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:329–336.
      1. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Lindén U, Bergström C, van Steenberghe D. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:639–645.
      1. Brocard D, Barthet P, Baysse E, Duffort JF, Eller P, Justumus P, Marin P, Oscaby F, Simonet T, Benqué E, Brunel G. A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI implants: a 7-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:691–700.
      1. Jemt T, Johansson J. Implant treatment in the edentulous maxillae: a 15-year follow-up study on 76 consecutive patients provided with fixed prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8:61–69.
      1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155–170.
      1. Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:33–42.
      1. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Brånemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991;62:2–4.
      1. Sullivan DY, Sherwood RL, Mai TN. Preliminary results of a multicenter study evaluating a chemically enhanced surface for machined commercially pure titanium implants. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:379–386.
      1. Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007;23:844–854.
      1. Lee YJ, Lee BU, Kim YS. Current studies of implant surface treatment - in perspective of bone healing mechanism. Implantology 2003;12:12–29.
      1. Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Tomlinson MJ, Gavrilovic J, Black J, Peoc'h M. Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen, and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:457–476.
      1. Song HJ. Advanced surface modification techniques for enhancing osseointegration of titanium implant. J Korean Dent Assoc 2010;48:97–105.
      1. Sanz A, Oyarzun A, Farias D, Diaz I. Experimental study of bone response to a new surface treatment of endosseous titanium implants. Implant Dent 2001;10:126–131.
      1. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2–8.
      1. Lee HJ, Song KY, Yoon TH. Effect of different surface treatments to increase biocompatibility of dental implant. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2006;44:594–605.
      1. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, Hoffmann B, Lussi A, Steinemann SG. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004;83:529–533.
      1. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889–902.
      1. Bornstein MM, Schmid B, Belser UC, Lussi A, Buser D. Early loading of non-submerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. 5-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:631–638.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Albrektsson T. Oxidized titanium screws coated with calcium ions and their performance in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:625–634.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Röser K, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Oxidized implants and their influence on the bone response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12:1025–1031.
      1. Kokubo T, Kim HM, Kawashita M, Nakamura T. Bioactive metals: preparation and properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004;15:99–107.
      1. Kilpadi DV, Lemons JE. Surface energy characterization of unalloyed titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:1419–1425.
      1. MacDonald DE, Deo N, Markovic B, Stranick M, Somasundaran P. Adsorption and dissolution behavior of human plasma fibronectin on thermally and chemically modified titanium dioxide particles. Biomaterials 2002;23:1269–1279.
      1. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Rehbein D, Axmann D, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterials 2004;25:1429–1438.
      1. Lim YJ, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT. Surface characterizations of variously treated titanium materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:333–342.
      1. Yanagisawa I, Sakuma H, Shimura M, Wakamatsu Y, Yanagisawa S, Sairenji E. Effects of "wettability" of biomaterials on culture cells. J Oral Implantol 1989;15:168–177.
      1. Smith DC, Pilliar RM, Chernecky R. Dental implant materials. I. Some effects of preparative procedures on surface topography. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:1045–1068.
      1. MacDonald DE, Rapuano BE, Deo N, Stranick M, Somasundaran P, Boskey AL. Thermal and chemical modification of titanium-aluminum-vanadium implant materials: effects on surface properties, glycoprotein adsorption, and MG63 cell attachment. Biomaterials 2004;25:3135–3146.
      1. 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;76:323–334.
      1. Kim C, Kendall MR, Miller MA, Long CL, Larson PR, Humphrey MB, Madden AS, Tas AC. Comparison of titanium soaked in 5 M NaOH or 5 M KOH solutions. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33:327–339.
      1. Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard LT, Hjørting-Hansen E. Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1223–1231.
      1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:24–30.
      1. Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ 2003;67:932–949.
      1. Brett PM, Harle J, Salih V, Mihoc R, Olsen I, Jones FH, Tonetti M. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone 2004;35:124–133.
      1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Ulrich H, Krol JJ. An optical three-dimensional technique for topographical descriptions of surgical implants. J Biomed Eng 1992;14:412–418.
      1. Kilpadi DV, Lemons JE. Surface energy characterization of unalloyed titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:1419–1425.
      1. MacDonald DE, Deo N, Markovic B, Stranick M, Somasundaran P. Adsorption and dissolution behavior of human plasma fibronectin on thermally and chemically modified titanium dioxide particles. Biomaterials 2002;23:1269–1279.
      1. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Rehbein D, Axmann D, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterials 2004;25:1429–1438.
      1. Clover J, Gowen M. Are MG-63 and HOS TE85 human osteosarcoma cell lines representative models of the osteoblastic phenotype? Bone 1994;15:585–591.
      1. 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;93:289–296.
    MeSH Terms
    Adenosine Triphosphate
    Cell Adhesion
    Cell Culture Techniques
    Cell Proliferation
    Osseointegration
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 9

    Tables
    slide

    1 / 1

    PERMALINK