Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The In Vitro Evaluation of Preosteoblast Migration From 3-D-printed Scaffolds to Decontaminated Smooth and Minimally Rough Titanium Surfaces: A Pilot Study

The In Vitro Evaluation of Preosteoblast Migration From 3-D-printed Scaffolds to Decontaminated... In vitro evaluations are essential to gaining a better understanding of re-osseointegration, while reducing animal use and the overall costs of peri-implantitis studies. This pilot study evaluated preosteoblast migration from 3-D-printed scaffolds to decontaminated titanium microimplants, creating a system that tries to mimic the bone–implant interface. Smooth (S) and minimally rough (R) titanium microimplants were incubated in Escherichia coli cultures and divided into six groups according to the decontamination protocol applied: EDTA gel (EDTA); chlorhexidine (CHL); chlorhexidine-soaked gauze (GCHL); scaling (SC); titanium brush (TiB); and implantoplasty (IP). Pristine S and R microimplants were used as the controls (C). After the decontamination procedures, the microimplants were inserted in 3-D-printed polyurethane-based scaffolds previously inoculated with preosteoblast cell cultures. Cellular migration was assessed after 24, 72 and 120 hours by ATP quantification. At the 120-hour time point, there was no statistically significant difference between S-C, S-EDTA, S-CHL, S-GCHL and S-SC (p > 0.05), and between R-C, R-EDTA and R-GCHL (p > 0.05). The in vitro model developed in this pilot study successfully demonstrated cell migration on the different decontaminated surfaces. This methodology suggests that on smooth microimplants, EDTA, GCHL, SC and TiB decontamination may have a reduced impact on preosteoblast migration, while on minimally rough microimplants, EDTA and GCHL decontamination affected cell migration the least. However, when selecting a decontamination protocol, the effectiveness of the decontamination per se must also be considered. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Alternatives to Laboratory Animals SAGE

The In Vitro Evaluation of Preosteoblast Migration From 3-D-printed Scaffolds to Decontaminated Smooth and Minimally Rough Titanium Surfaces: A Pilot Study

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/the-in-vitro-evaluation-of-preosteoblast-migration-from-3-d-printed-bARhpE0SUq

References (43)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021
ISSN
0261-1929
eISSN
2632-3559
DOI
10.1177/02611929211022165
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In vitro evaluations are essential to gaining a better understanding of re-osseointegration, while reducing animal use and the overall costs of peri-implantitis studies. This pilot study evaluated preosteoblast migration from 3-D-printed scaffolds to decontaminated titanium microimplants, creating a system that tries to mimic the bone–implant interface. Smooth (S) and minimally rough (R) titanium microimplants were incubated in Escherichia coli cultures and divided into six groups according to the decontamination protocol applied: EDTA gel (EDTA); chlorhexidine (CHL); chlorhexidine-soaked gauze (GCHL); scaling (SC); titanium brush (TiB); and implantoplasty (IP). Pristine S and R microimplants were used as the controls (C). After the decontamination procedures, the microimplants were inserted in 3-D-printed polyurethane-based scaffolds previously inoculated with preosteoblast cell cultures. Cellular migration was assessed after 24, 72 and 120 hours by ATP quantification. At the 120-hour time point, there was no statistically significant difference between S-C, S-EDTA, S-CHL, S-GCHL and S-SC (p > 0.05), and between R-C, R-EDTA and R-GCHL (p > 0.05). The in vitro model developed in this pilot study successfully demonstrated cell migration on the different decontaminated surfaces. This methodology suggests that on smooth microimplants, EDTA, GCHL, SC and TiB decontamination may have a reduced impact on preosteoblast migration, while on minimally rough microimplants, EDTA and GCHL decontamination affected cell migration the least. However, when selecting a decontamination protocol, the effectiveness of the decontamination per se must also be considered.

Journal

Alternatives to Laboratory AnimalsSAGE

Published: May 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.