Biological response of epithelial and connective tissue cells to titanium surfaces with different ranges of roughness: An in-vitro study
This study aimed to investigate how titanium (Ti) surface with different range roughness created by industrial machining influence the biological response of primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and keratinocytes (HGKC) in terms of cell proliferation and cytotoxicity. Four Ti surfaces of differ...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Dental materials 2022-11, Vol.38 (11), p.1777-1788 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1788 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 1777 |
| container_title | Dental materials |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Osman, Muataz A. Alamoush, Rasha A. Kushnerev, Evgeny Seymour, Kevin G. Watts, David C. Yates, Julian M. |
| description | This study aimed to investigate how titanium (Ti) surface with different range roughness created by industrial machining influence the biological response of primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and keratinocytes (HGKC) in terms of cell proliferation and cytotoxicity.
Four Ti surfaces of different roughness ranges were investigated: smooth (S: 0.08–0.1 µm), minimally rough (MM: 0.3–0.5 µm), moderately rough (MR: 1.2–1.4 µm) and rough (R: 3.3–3.7 µm). Discs topography and surface roughness were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and non-contact profilometer. Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and maintained according to their supplier’s protocols. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using cell viability and cytotoxicity colorimetric assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (p = 0.05 for all tests).
Both cell lines showed comparable initial proliferation activity of 70–86% for all the investigated roughnesses. HGKC showed better and higher proliferation % with S surface at all time points than all the other investigated surfaces which was significantly higher than MM at day 3 and higher than all the other investigated surfaces at day 5 and 10. On the other hand, HGFB exhibited the best proliferation with both MM and R surfaces with no significant differences from the other two surfaces (S and MR). Different surface roughnesses and exposure times showed significant effect on cell proliferation in both cell lines. Cytotoxicity for both cell lines was generally the highest on day 3, with the following order from highest to lowest: S (19.86%)> R> MR> MM for HGKC and MM (39.48%)> MR> S> R for HGFB. Different exposure times showed a significant effect on cell cytotoxicity in both cell lines and a significant effect of surface roughness in HGFB.
All investigated roughness levels were sufficiently biologically compatible with cells representative of the major population of the soft tissue surrounding dental implants. However, the S surface was most cytotoxic to HGKC, while the MM surface was most cytotoxic to HGFB cells. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2754550197</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0109564122002755</els_id><sourcerecordid>2754550197</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3e2d26af39525644561cb85a8be626d27eb5c4d863a57d6ad06e4fbb88fbbcc83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFFPHCEUhUmjqVvbf2AMSZ9nCgwwjA9N1NjWxKQv9ZkwcGdlMwsrMNv4D_zZYtb20RcIJ-ecy_0QOqOkpYTKb5vWQShmbhlhrCVDSyj5gFZU9UNDyNAfoVVVhkZITk_Qp5w3hBDOBvoRnXSSKia4WqHnKx_nuPbWzDhB3sWQAccJw86XB5h9lU1w2MYQwBa_B1x8zgtgC_OccYn1XUzwyxbnJU3GQsZ_axQ7P02Q6g9xMmFd1Vqa4rJ-CJDzBb4M2Idm70uKOJfFPX1Gx5OZM3x5u0_R_Y-bP9e_mrvfP2-vL-8ayztZmg6YY9JM3SBY3YwLSe2ohFEjSCYd62EUljslOyN6J40jEvg0jkrVw1rVnaKvh95dio8L5KI3cUmhjtSsF1wIQoe-uvjBZVPMOcGkd8lvTXrSlOhX_HqjD_j1K35NBl1h19j5W_kybsH9D_3jXQ3fDwaoK-49JJ2th2DB-VT5ahf9-xNeABabm0I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2754550197</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biological response of epithelial and connective tissue cells to titanium surfaces with different ranges of roughness: An in-vitro study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect</source><creator>Osman, Muataz A. ; Alamoush, Rasha A. ; Kushnerev, Evgeny ; Seymour, Kevin G. ; Watts, David C. ; Yates, Julian M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Osman, Muataz A. ; Alamoush, Rasha A. ; Kushnerev, Evgeny ; Seymour, Kevin G. ; Watts, David C. ; Yates, Julian M.</creatorcontrib><description>This study aimed to investigate how titanium (Ti) surface with different range roughness created by industrial machining influence the biological response of primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and keratinocytes (HGKC) in terms of cell proliferation and cytotoxicity.
Four Ti surfaces of different roughness ranges were investigated: smooth (S: 0.08–0.1 µm), minimally rough (MM: 0.3–0.5 µm), moderately rough (MR: 1.2–1.4 µm) and rough (R: 3.3–3.7 µm). Discs topography and surface roughness were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and non-contact profilometer. Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and maintained according to their supplier’s protocols. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using cell viability and cytotoxicity colorimetric assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (p = 0.05 for all tests).
Both cell lines showed comparable initial proliferation activity of 70–86% for all the investigated roughnesses. HGKC showed better and higher proliferation % with S surface at all time points than all the other investigated surfaces which was significantly higher than MM at day 3 and higher than all the other investigated surfaces at day 5 and 10. On the other hand, HGFB exhibited the best proliferation with both MM and R surfaces with no significant differences from the other two surfaces (S and MR). Different surface roughnesses and exposure times showed significant effect on cell proliferation in both cell lines. Cytotoxicity for both cell lines was generally the highest on day 3, with the following order from highest to lowest: S (19.86%)> R> MR> MM for HGKC and MM (39.48%)> MR> S> R for HGFB. Different exposure times showed a significant effect on cell cytotoxicity in both cell lines and a significant effect of surface roughness in HGFB.
All investigated roughness levels were sufficiently biologically compatible with cells representative of the major population of the soft tissue surrounding dental implants. However, the S surface was most cytotoxic to HGKC, while the MM surface was most cytotoxic to HGFB cells.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0109-5641</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0097</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36182548</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biocompatibility ; Cell growth ; Cell lines ; Cell proliferation ; Cell viability ; Colorimetry ; Connective tissues ; Cytotoxicity ; Dental Implants ; Dental prosthetics ; Fibroblasts ; Gingiva ; Human gingival fibroblasts ; Human gingival keratinocytes ; Humans ; Keratinocytes ; Machining ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; Scanning electron microscopy ; Soft tissues ; Surface Properties ; Surface roughness ; Surface roughness effects ; Titanium ; Titanium - toxicity ; Titanium surface roughness ; Toxicity ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>Dental materials, 2022-11, Vol.38 (11), p.1777-1788</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Nov 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3e2d26af39525644561cb85a8be626d27eb5c4d863a57d6ad06e4fbb88fbbcc83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3e2d26af39525644561cb85a8be626d27eb5c4d863a57d6ad06e4fbb88fbbcc83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36182548$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Osman, Muataz A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alamoush, Rasha A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kushnerev, Evgeny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seymour, Kevin G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Watts, David C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yates, Julian M.</creatorcontrib><title>Biological response of epithelial and connective tissue cells to titanium surfaces with different ranges of roughness: An in-vitro study</title><title>Dental materials</title><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><description>This study aimed to investigate how titanium (Ti) surface with different range roughness created by industrial machining influence the biological response of primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and keratinocytes (HGKC) in terms of cell proliferation and cytotoxicity.
Four Ti surfaces of different roughness ranges were investigated: smooth (S: 0.08–0.1 µm), minimally rough (MM: 0.3–0.5 µm), moderately rough (MR: 1.2–1.4 µm) and rough (R: 3.3–3.7 µm). Discs topography and surface roughness were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and non-contact profilometer. Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and maintained according to their supplier’s protocols. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using cell viability and cytotoxicity colorimetric assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (p = 0.05 for all tests).
Both cell lines showed comparable initial proliferation activity of 70–86% for all the investigated roughnesses. HGKC showed better and higher proliferation % with S surface at all time points than all the other investigated surfaces which was significantly higher than MM at day 3 and higher than all the other investigated surfaces at day 5 and 10. On the other hand, HGFB exhibited the best proliferation with both MM and R surfaces with no significant differences from the other two surfaces (S and MR). Different surface roughnesses and exposure times showed significant effect on cell proliferation in both cell lines. Cytotoxicity for both cell lines was generally the highest on day 3, with the following order from highest to lowest: S (19.86%)> R> MR> MM for HGKC and MM (39.48%)> MR> S> R for HGFB. Different exposure times showed a significant effect on cell cytotoxicity in both cell lines and a significant effect of surface roughness in HGFB.
All investigated roughness levels were sufficiently biologically compatible with cells representative of the major population of the soft tissue surrounding dental implants. However, the S surface was most cytotoxic to HGKC, while the MM surface was most cytotoxic to HGFB cells.</description><subject>Biocompatibility</subject><subject>Cell growth</subject><subject>Cell lines</subject><subject>Cell proliferation</subject><subject>Cell viability</subject><subject>Colorimetry</subject><subject>Connective tissues</subject><subject>Cytotoxicity</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental prosthetics</subject><subject>Fibroblasts</subject><subject>Gingiva</subject><subject>Human gingival fibroblasts</subject><subject>Human gingival keratinocytes</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Keratinocytes</subject><subject>Machining</subject><subject>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</subject><subject>Scanning electron microscopy</subject><subject>Soft tissues</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Surface roughness</subject><subject>Surface roughness effects</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><subject>Titanium - toxicity</subject><subject>Titanium surface roughness</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>0109-5641</issn><issn>1879-0097</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kFFPHCEUhUmjqVvbf2AMSZ9nCgwwjA9N1NjWxKQv9ZkwcGdlMwsrMNv4D_zZYtb20RcIJ-ecy_0QOqOkpYTKb5vWQShmbhlhrCVDSyj5gFZU9UNDyNAfoVVVhkZITk_Qp5w3hBDOBvoRnXSSKia4WqHnKx_nuPbWzDhB3sWQAccJw86XB5h9lU1w2MYQwBa_B1x8zgtgC_OccYn1XUzwyxbnJU3GQsZ_axQ7P02Q6g9xMmFd1Vqa4rJ-CJDzBb4M2Idm70uKOJfFPX1Gx5OZM3x5u0_R_Y-bP9e_mrvfP2-vL-8ayztZmg6YY9JM3SBY3YwLSe2ohFEjSCYd62EUljslOyN6J40jEvg0jkrVw1rVnaKvh95dio8L5KI3cUmhjtSsF1wIQoe-uvjBZVPMOcGkd8lvTXrSlOhX_HqjD_j1K35NBl1h19j5W_kybsH9D_3jXQ3fDwaoK-49JJ2th2DB-VT5ahf9-xNeABabm0I</recordid><startdate>202211</startdate><enddate>202211</enddate><creator>Osman, Muataz A.</creator><creator>Alamoush, Rasha A.</creator><creator>Kushnerev, Evgeny</creator><creator>Seymour, Kevin G.</creator><creator>Watts, David C.</creator><creator>Yates, Julian M.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202211</creationdate><title>Biological response of epithelial and connective tissue cells to titanium surfaces with different ranges of roughness: An in-vitro study</title><author>Osman, Muataz A. ; Alamoush, Rasha A. ; Kushnerev, Evgeny ; Seymour, Kevin G. ; Watts, David C. ; Yates, Julian M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-3e2d26af39525644561cb85a8be626d27eb5c4d863a57d6ad06e4fbb88fbbcc83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biocompatibility</topic><topic>Cell growth</topic><topic>Cell lines</topic><topic>Cell proliferation</topic><topic>Cell viability</topic><topic>Colorimetry</topic><topic>Connective tissues</topic><topic>Cytotoxicity</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental prosthetics</topic><topic>Fibroblasts</topic><topic>Gingiva</topic><topic>Human gingival fibroblasts</topic><topic>Human gingival keratinocytes</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Keratinocytes</topic><topic>Machining</topic><topic>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</topic><topic>Scanning electron microscopy</topic><topic>Soft tissues</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Surface roughness</topic><topic>Surface roughness effects</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><topic>Titanium - toxicity</topic><topic>Titanium surface roughness</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Osman, Muataz A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alamoush, Rasha A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kushnerev, Evgeny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seymour, Kevin G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Watts, David C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yates, Julian M.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Osman, Muataz A.</au><au>Alamoush, Rasha A.</au><au>Kushnerev, Evgeny</au><au>Seymour, Kevin G.</au><au>Watts, David C.</au><au>Yates, Julian M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biological response of epithelial and connective tissue cells to titanium surfaces with different ranges of roughness: An in-vitro study</atitle><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><date>2022-11</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1777</spage><epage>1788</epage><pages>1777-1788</pages><issn>0109-5641</issn><eissn>1879-0097</eissn><abstract>This study aimed to investigate how titanium (Ti) surface with different range roughness created by industrial machining influence the biological response of primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and keratinocytes (HGKC) in terms of cell proliferation and cytotoxicity.
Four Ti surfaces of different roughness ranges were investigated: smooth (S: 0.08–0.1 µm), minimally rough (MM: 0.3–0.5 µm), moderately rough (MR: 1.2–1.4 µm) and rough (R: 3.3–3.7 µm). Discs topography and surface roughness were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and non-contact profilometer. Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and maintained according to their supplier’s protocols. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using cell viability and cytotoxicity colorimetric assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (p = 0.05 for all tests).
Both cell lines showed comparable initial proliferation activity of 70–86% for all the investigated roughnesses. HGKC showed better and higher proliferation % with S surface at all time points than all the other investigated surfaces which was significantly higher than MM at day 3 and higher than all the other investigated surfaces at day 5 and 10. On the other hand, HGFB exhibited the best proliferation with both MM and R surfaces with no significant differences from the other two surfaces (S and MR). Different surface roughnesses and exposure times showed significant effect on cell proliferation in both cell lines. Cytotoxicity for both cell lines was generally the highest on day 3, with the following order from highest to lowest: S (19.86%)> R> MR> MM for HGKC and MM (39.48%)> MR> S> R for HGFB. Different exposure times showed a significant effect on cell cytotoxicity in both cell lines and a significant effect of surface roughness in HGFB.
All investigated roughness levels were sufficiently biologically compatible with cells representative of the major population of the soft tissue surrounding dental implants. However, the S surface was most cytotoxic to HGKC, while the MM surface was most cytotoxic to HGFB cells.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>36182548</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.010</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0109-5641 |
| ispartof | Dental materials, 2022-11, Vol.38 (11), p.1777-1788 |
| issn | 0109-5641 1879-0097 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2754550197 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect |
| subjects | Biocompatibility Cell growth Cell lines Cell proliferation Cell viability Colorimetry Connective tissues Cytotoxicity Dental Implants Dental prosthetics Fibroblasts Gingiva Human gingival fibroblasts Human gingival keratinocytes Humans Keratinocytes Machining Microscopy, Electron, Scanning Scanning electron microscopy Soft tissues Surface Properties Surface roughness Surface roughness effects Titanium Titanium - toxicity Titanium surface roughness Toxicity Variance analysis |
| title | Biological response of epithelial and connective tissue cells to titanium surfaces with different ranges of roughness: An in-vitro study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T09%3A43%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biological%20response%20of%20epithelial%20and%20connective%20tissue%20cells%20to%20titanium%20surfaces%20with%20different%20ranges%20of%20roughness:%20An%20in-vitro%20study&rft.jtitle=Dental%20materials&rft.au=Osman,%20Muataz%20A.&rft.date=2022-11&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1777&rft.epage=1788&rft.pages=1777-1788&rft.issn=0109-5641&rft.eissn=1879-0097&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2754550197%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2754550197&rft_id=info:pmid/36182548&rft_els_id=S0109564122002755&rfr_iscdi=true |