Influence of Sandblasted and Acid-etched Commercially Pure Grade II Titanium Surface on Human Osteosarcoma Osteoblast Cell Proliferation and Attachment: A Pilot Study
Raj Gaurav Singh
Keywords :
Human osteoblast osteosarcoma cells, Sandblasted and acid-etched, Titanium
Citation Information :
Singh RG. Influence of Sandblasted and Acid-etched Commercially Pure Grade II Titanium Surface on Human Osteosarcoma Osteoblast Cell Proliferation and Attachment: A Pilot Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019; 9 (4):108-112.
Aim: To evaluate the effect of surface microtopography on osteogenic cell behavior. Materials and methods: Commercially pure grade II titanium discs of similar design and dimensions (2.5 mm × 6 mm) were selected for the study. Samples were sandblasted using 110 μm grit-size alumina (Al2O3), and 15% hydrofluoric acid (HF), 96% sulphuric acid (H2SO4), and 37% hydrochloric acid (HCl) were used for acid etching. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) of samples was performed to observe the surface morphology and elemental analysis. Surface roughness was measured using a surface profilometer. Human osteosarcoma (HOS) cells were seeded at a density of 5 × 103 per test material and control cover slip and incubated for 48 hours. After critical point drying and gold sputtering, a scanning electron microscope was used to observe the cell morphology, proliferation, and cell attachment. Results: Scanning electron microscopy revealed that sandblasting and acid etching resulted in a homogeneous rough surface with a flatter profile. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy showed a significant increase in the oxygen content (29.38%) after sandblasting and acid etching. Conclusion: Scanning electron microscopy result of the sandblasted and acid-etched surface showed that cell sheets were able to migrate into the pores and adhered inside the valleys suggesting excellent sign of osseointegration.
Puleo DA, Thomas MV. Implant surfaces. Dent Clin N Am 2006;50: 323–338. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2006.03.001.
Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977;16(Suppl 1):7–127.
Alberktsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, et al. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52(2):155–170. DOI: 10.3109/17453678108991776.
Kasemo B. Biocompatibility of titanium implants: surface science aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49(6):832–837. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90359-1.
Choi JW, Heo SJ, Koak JY, et al. Biological responses of anodized titanium implants under different current voltages. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(12):889–897. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01669.x.
Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinmann S, et al. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25(7):889–902. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820250708.
Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, et al. Implant Surface Roughness and Bone Healing: a Systematic Review. J Dent Res 2006;85(6):496–500. DOI: 10.1177/154405910608500603.
Brunette DM. The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;3(4):231–246.
Anil Kumar PR, Varma HK, Kumary TV. Rapid and complete cellularization of hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 2005;1(5):545–552. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2005.05.002.
Anil Kumar PR, Varma HK, Kumary TV. Cell patch seeding and functional analysis cellularized scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomed Mater 2007;2(1):48–54. DOI: 10.1088/1748-6041/2/1/008.
Alberktsson T. Bone-metal interface in osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57(5):597–607. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90344-1.
Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T, et al. A 10 year follow-up of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:486–494.
Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Johansson C, et al. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses. Clin Oral Imp Res 1998;9(1):11–19.
Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, et al. Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13(5):611–619.
PiateIli A, Manzon L, Scarano A, et al. Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of the bone response to machined and sandblasted titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13(6):805–810.
Marinho V, Celletti R, Brachetti G, et al. Sand-blasted and acid-etched dental implants: a histological study in rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18(1):75–81.
Baker D, London RM, O'Neal R. Rate of pull-out strength gain of dual-etched titanium implants: a comparative study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14(5):722–728.
Cordiolli G, Majzoub Z, PiateUi A, et al. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(5):668–674.
Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, et al. De-novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003;14(3):251–262. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x.
Shirakura M, Fujii N, Ohnishi H, et al. Tissue response to titanium implantation in the rat maxilla, with special reference to the effects of surface conditions on bone formation. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003;14(6):687–696. DOI: 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00960.x.
Singh RG. Evaluation of bioactivity of titanium after varied surface treatments using human osteosarcoma osteoblast cells-An in vitro study. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(5):998–1003.
