Matsuura Takanori, Komatsu Keiji, Chao Denny, Lin Yu-Chun, Oberoi Nimish, McCulloch Kalie, Cheng James, Orellana Daniela, Ogawa Takahiro
Division of Regenerative and Reconstructive Sciences and Weintraub Center for Reconstructive Biotechnology, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668, USA.
Biomimetics (Basel). 2022 Dec 16;7(4):243. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics7040243.
Implant provisional restorations should ideally be nontoxic to the contacting and adjacent tissues, create anatomical and biophysiological stability, and establish a soft tissue seal through interactions between prosthesis, soft tissue, and alveolar bone. However, there is a lack of robust, systematic, and fundamental data to inform clinical decision making. Here we systematically explored the biocompatibility of fibroblasts and osteoblasts in direct contact with, or close proximity to, provisional restoration materials. Human gingival fibroblasts and osteoblasts were cultured on the "contact" effect and around the "proximity" effect with various provisional materials: bis-acrylic, composite, self-curing acrylic, and milled acrylic, with titanium alloy as a bioinert control. The number of fibroblasts and osteoblasts surviving and attaching to and around the materials varied considerably depending on the material, with milled acrylic the most biocompatible and similar to titanium alloy, followed by self-curing acrylic and little to no attachment on or around bis-acrylic and composite materials. Milled and self-curing acrylics similarly favored subsequent cellular proliferation and physiological functions such as collagen production in fibroblasts and alkaline phosphatase activity in osteoblasts. Neither fibroblasts nor osteoblasts showed a functional phenotype when cultured with bis-acrylic or composite. By calculating a biocompatibility index for each material, we established that fibroblasts were more resistant to the cytotoxicity induced by most materials in direct contact, however, the osteoblasts were more resistant when the materials were in close proximity. In conclusion, there was a wide variation in the cytotoxicity of implant provisional restoration materials ranging from lethal and tolerant to near inert, and this cytotoxicity may be received differently between the different cell types and depending on their physical interrelationships.
种植体临时修复体理想情况下应对接触组织和相邻组织无毒,建立解剖学和生物生理学稳定性,并通过假体、软组织和牙槽骨之间的相互作用形成软组织封闭。然而,缺乏有力、系统且基础的数据来为临床决策提供依据。在此,我们系统地探究了成纤维细胞和成骨细胞与临时修复材料直接接触或近距离接触时的生物相容性。将人牙龈成纤维细胞和成骨细胞培养于与各种临时材料的“接触”效应及“近距离”效应周围:双丙烯酸酯、复合树脂、自凝丙烯酸酯和铣削丙烯酸酯,以钛合金作为生物惰性对照。存活并附着于材料及其周围的成纤维细胞和成骨细胞数量因材料而异,铣削丙烯酸酯的生物相容性最佳,与钛合金相似,其次是自凝丙烯酸酯,双丙烯酸酯和复合树脂材料上或其周围几乎没有附着。铣削丙烯酸酯和自凝丙烯酸酯同样有利于后续细胞增殖和生理功能,如成纤维细胞中的胶原蛋白生成和成骨细胞中的碱性磷酸酶活性。与双丙烯酸酯或复合树脂一起培养时,成纤维细胞和成骨细胞均未表现出功能表型。通过计算每种材料的生物相容性指数,我们发现成纤维细胞对大多数直接接触材料诱导的细胞毒性更具抗性,然而,当材料近距离接触时,成骨细胞更具抗性。总之,种植体临时修复材料的细胞毒性差异很大,从致命、耐受到接近惰性,并且这种细胞毒性在不同细胞类型之间以及取决于它们的物理相互关系时可能会有不同的反应。