4.4 Article

Differential Behavior of Fibroblasts and Epithelial Cells on Structured Implant Abutment Materials: A Comparison of Materials and Surface Topographies

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12253

关键词

biomaterials; focal adhesion; implant abutment; soft tissue-implant interactions; zirconia

资金

  1. German Society for Dental and Oral Medicine (DGZMK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the proliferation and attachment behavior of fibroblasts and epithelial cells on differently structured abutment materials. Materials and Methods: Three different surface topographies were prepared on zirconia and titanium alloy specimens and defined as follows: machined (as delivered without further surface modification), smooth (polished), and rough (sandblasted). Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, topographical analysis, and water contact angle measurements were used to analyze the surface properties. Fibroblasts (HGF1) and epithelial cells (HNEpC) grown on the specimens were investigated 24 hours and 72 hours after seeding and counted using fluorescence imaging. To investigate adhesion, the abundance and arrangement of the focal adhesion protein vinculin were evaluated by immunocytochemistry. Results: Similar surface topographies were created on both materials. Fibroblasts exhibited significant higher proliferation rates on comparable surface topographies of zirconia compared with the titanium alloy. The proliferation of fibroblasts and epithelial cells was optimal on different substrate/topography combinations. Cell spreading was generally higher on polished and machined surfaces than on sandblasted surfaces. Rough surfaces provided favorable properties in terms of cellular adhesion of fibroblasts but not of epithelial cells. Conclusions: Our data support complex soft tissue cell-substrate interactions: the fibroblast and epithelial cell response is influenced by both the material and surface topography.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据