Giulia Brunello, Kathrin Becker, Nicole Rauch, Frank Schwarz, Jürgen Becker
{"title":"The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility.","authors":"Giulia Brunello, Kathrin Becker, Nicole Rauch, Frank Schwarz, Jürgen Becker","doi":"10.1111/cid.13417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To in vitro investigate the effect of different implant surface decontamination methods and treatment storing conditions on implant surface morphology and cell viability.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Titanium disks with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface (Promote, PRO) were treated with diamond polishing brushes (BRUSH), nickel-titanium brushes (NITI), or phenol and sulfuric acid-gel (GEL). The disks were stored in saline (-S) or left exposed to air overnight (-A). Untreated (PRO) and machined (MACHINED) disks were used as controls. GEL samples were treated for the 60 s, while the operative time was recorded for BRUSH and NITI. The samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM), surface roughness measurements, and cell viability (SaOS-2 cells, 7 days) assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The operative time was shorter for NITI than for BRUSH (p = 0.017). The original surface morphology (PRO) was not altered in the GEL group, in contrast with what was observed for BRUSH and NITI. The type of storage did not influence the surface morphology. No significant differences in Sa and Sz were observed among the groups, except for MACHINED, which presented lower Sa values (p < 0.05). Cells were able to proliferate on all surfaces. NITI-S showed significantly higher cell viability compared to all groups (p ≤ 0.001), except for NITI-A and MACHINED. Among the treated groups, only one additional significant difference was found, as NITI-A performed better than GEL-S.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of the investigated protocols compromised the cytocompatibility of the titanium dental implant surface. The best results were registered in the NITI group when the samples were stored in saline. Future studies should confirm the effectiveness of the proposed methods in removing bacterial biofilm from contaminated implant surfaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To in vitro investigate the effect of different implant surface decontamination methods and treatment storing conditions on implant surface morphology and cell viability.
Materials and methods: Titanium disks with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface (Promote, PRO) were treated with diamond polishing brushes (BRUSH), nickel-titanium brushes (NITI), or phenol and sulfuric acid-gel (GEL). The disks were stored in saline (-S) or left exposed to air overnight (-A). Untreated (PRO) and machined (MACHINED) disks were used as controls. GEL samples were treated for the 60 s, while the operative time was recorded for BRUSH and NITI. The samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM), surface roughness measurements, and cell viability (SaOS-2 cells, 7 days) assessment.
Results: The operative time was shorter for NITI than for BRUSH (p = 0.017). The original surface morphology (PRO) was not altered in the GEL group, in contrast with what was observed for BRUSH and NITI. The type of storage did not influence the surface morphology. No significant differences in Sa and Sz were observed among the groups, except for MACHINED, which presented lower Sa values (p < 0.05). Cells were able to proliferate on all surfaces. NITI-S showed significantly higher cell viability compared to all groups (p ≤ 0.001), except for NITI-A and MACHINED. Among the treated groups, only one additional significant difference was found, as NITI-A performed better than GEL-S.
Conclusions: None of the investigated protocols compromised the cytocompatibility of the titanium dental implant surface. The best results were registered in the NITI group when the samples were stored in saline. Future studies should confirm the effectiveness of the proposed methods in removing bacterial biofilm from contaminated implant surfaces.