Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2015 Jan;53(1):9-18. Korean.
    Published online Jan 27, 2015.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2015.53.1.9
    Copyright © 2015 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    The effect of blasting and anodizing-combined treatment of implant surface on response of osteoblast-like cell

    Bo-Yong Seo,1,a Young-Min Kim,2,a Jae-Won Choi,1 Mi-Jung Yun,1 Young-Chan Jeon,1 Chang-Mo Jeong,1 Gyu-Cheon Kim,2 and Jung-Bo Huh1
      • 1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
      • 2Department of Oral Anatomy, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Jung-Bo Huh. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University 20 Geumo-ro, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan 626-770, Republic of Korea. +82 55 360 5130: Email: huhjb@pusan.ac.kr

      aThese authors are equally contributed to this work.
    Received November 07, 2014; Revised December 18, 2014; Accepted January 07, 2015.

    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 is to examine characteristics of implant surface with RBM and anodizing treatments, and to evaluate the responses of osteoblast-like cell (MG-63 cell).

    Materials and methods

    Grade IV titanium disks were fabricated (Diameter 10 mm, thickness 3 mm). Anodizing treatment (ASD) group, RBM and anodizing treatment (RBM/ASD) group, control (machined surface) group were divided. In this study, osteoblast-like cell was used for experiments. The experiments consist of surface characteristics evaluation by FE-SEM images, energy dispersive spectroscopy and stereo-SEM. In order to evaluate cell adhesion evaluation by crystal violet assay and observe cells form by confocal laser microscopy. To assess cell proliferation by XTT assay, cell differentiation by RT-PCR and mineralization by Alizarin red S stain assay. ELISA analyzer was used for Quantitative evaluation. Comparative analysis was run by one-way ANOVA (SPSS version 18.0). Differences were considered statistically significant at P<.05.

    Results

    In ASD group and RBM/ASD group, the surface shape of the crater was observed and components of oxygen and phosphate ions in comparison with the control group were detected. The surface average roughness was obtained 0.08 ± 0.04 µm in the control group, 0.52 ± 0.14 µm in ASD group and 1.45 ± 0.25 µm in RBM/ASD group. In cell response experiments, ASD group and RBM/ASD group were significantly higher values than control group in cell adhesion and mineralization phase, control group was the highest values in the proliferative phase. In RT-PCR experiments, RBM/ASD group was showed higher ALP activity than other groups. RBM/ASD group in comparison with ASD group was significantly higher value for cell adhesion and proliferation phase.

    Conclusion

    In the limitation of this study, we are concluded that the surface treatment with RBM/ASD seems more effective than ASD alone or machined surface on cellular response.

    Keywords
    Anodizing treatment; RBM treatment; Surface roughness; Osteoblast-like cell; Adhesion; Proliferation; Differentiation

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    FE-SEM images of each group. (A) Control group (×100), (B) Control group (×500), (C) ASD group (×100), (D) ASD group (×500), (E) RBM/ASD group (×100), (F) RBM/ASD group (×500).

    Fig. 2
    The results of the energy dispersive spectrometry. (A) Control group, (B) ASD group, (C) RBM/ASD group.

    Fig. 3
    The degree of cell adhesion by crystal violet staining assay after 3 hours incubation time (n=7 in each group). *P<.05, **P<.01.

    Fig. 4
    Adhesion pattern images of MG-63 cells by SEM (×40,000 magnification). (A) Control group, (B) ASD group, (C) RBM/ASD group.

    Fig. 5
    Confocal laser scanning microscopy images of MG-63 cells (×400 magnification). (A) Control group (incubation for 2 hours), (B) Control group (incubation for 24 hours), (C) ASD group (incubation for 2 hours), (D) ASD group (incubation for 24 hours), (E) RBM/ASD group (incubation for 2 hours), (F) RBM/ASD group (incubation for 24 hours).

    Fig. 6
    The degree of cell proliferation by XTT assay after 3 days incubation time (n=7 in each group). *P<.05.

    Fig. 7
    The Results of electrophoresis after RT-PCR. Osteoclacin, osteopontin and collagen type I were to show a similar expression levels in all three groups, ALP showed the highest expression levels in RBM/ASD group.

    Fig. 8
    The degree of cell calcification by Alizarin red S assay after 21 days incubation time (n=7 in each group). **P<.01.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Surface roughness by stereo-SEM in each group

    Table 2
    The percentage of components in each group's surface

    Notes

    This study was supported by Pusan National University research grant (2 years).

    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. Schroeder A, Van der Zypen E, Stich H, Sutter F. The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 1981;9:15–25.
      1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11–25.
      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. 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. 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. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;40:1–11.
      1. Roberts WE, Garetto LP, DeCastro RA. Remodeling of devitalized bone threatens periosteal margin integrity of endosseous titanium implants with threaded or smooth surfaces: indications for provisional loading and axially directed occlusion. J Indiana Dent Assoc 1989;68:19–24.
      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. He FM, Yang GL, Li YN, Wang XX, Zhao SF. Early bone response to sandblasted, dual acid-etched and H2O2/HCl treated titanium implants: an experimental study in the rabbit. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:677–681.
      1. Yang GL, He FM, Yang XF, Wang XX, Zhao SF. Bone responses to titanium implants surface-roughened by sandblasted and double etched treatments in a rabbit model. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:516–524.
      1. Aparicio C, Gil FJ, Fonseca C, Barbosa M, Planell JA. Corrosion behaviour of commercially pure titanium shot blasted with different materials and sizes of shot particles for dental implant applications. Biomaterials 2003;24:263–273.
      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. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Petronis S, Krozer A, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Characteristics of the surface oxides on turned and electrochemically oxidized pure titanium implants up to dielectric breakdown: the oxide thickness, micropore configurations, surface roughness, crystal structure and chemical composition. Biomaterials 2002;23:491–501.
      1. Lausmaa J. Surface spectroscopic characterization of titanium implant materials. J Electron Spectrosc Relat Phenom 1996;81:343–361.
      1. Olefjord I, Hansson S. Surface analysis of four dental implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:32–40.
      1. Machnee CH, Wagner WC, Jaarda MJ, Lang BR. Identification of oxide layers of commercially pure titanium in response to cleaning procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:529–533.
      1. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1-review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:536–543.
      1. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2-review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:544–564.
      1. Stadlinger B, Lode AT, Eckelt U, Range U, Schlottig F, Hefti T, Mai R. Surface-conditioned dental implants: an animal study on bone formation. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:882–891.
      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. Martin JY, Dean DD, Cochran DL, Simpson J, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63) cultured on previously used titanium surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:27–37.
      1. Zhu X, Ong JL, Kim S, Kim K. Surface characteristics and structure of anodic oxide films containing Ca and P on a titanium implant material. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;60:333–338.
      1. Macak JM, Tsuchiya H, Taveira L, Ghicov A, Schmuki P. Self-organized nanotubular oxide layers on Ti-6Al-7Nb and Ti-6Al-4V formed by anodization in NH4F solutions. J Biomed Mater Res A 2005;75:928–933.
      1. Hynes RO. Integrins: versatility, modulation, and signaling in cell adhesion. Cell 1992;69:11–25.
      1. Villarreal DR, Sogal A, Ong JL. Protein adsorption and osteoblast responses to different calcium phosphate surfaces. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:67–73.
      1. Martin JY, Schwartz Z, Hummert TW, Schraub DM, Simpson J, Lankford J Jr, Dean DD, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:389–401.
      1. Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, Hunziker E. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1567–1575.
      1. Wennerberg A. The importance of surface roughness for implant incorporation. Int J Mach Tools Manufact 1998;38:657–662.
      1. 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;19:2219–2232.
      1. Kim HJ, Son MK, Park JI, Chung HJ, Kim YJ. Biological response of primary rat calvarial cell by surface treatment of Ti-8Ta-8Nb alloy. J Korean Acad Periodontol 2008;38:595–602.
    MeSH Terms
    Cell Adhesion
    Cell Differentiation
    Cell Proliferation
    Control Groups
    Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
    Evaluation Studies as Topic
    Gentian Violet
    Ions
    Microscopy, Confocal
    Oxygen
    Spectrum Analysis
    Titanium
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 8

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    PERMALINK