Baus-Domínguez María, Maza-Solano Serafín, Vázquez-Pachón Celia, Flores-Cerero Marta, Torres-Lagares Daniel, Serrera-Figallo María-Ángeles, Macías-García Laura
Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, IBiS/Departamento de Estomatología, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avicena S/N, 41009 Sevilla, Spain.
Departamento de Citología e Histología Normal y Patológica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Sevilla, Avda. Sánchez-Pizjuán S/N, 41009 Sevilla, Spain.
Polymers (Basel). 2023 Aug 7;15(15):3321. doi: 10.3390/polym15153321.
(1) Background: Mucointegration seems to gain interest when talking about success in the maintenance of dental implants. As we well know, collagen fibres cannot be inserted due to the lack of root structure on the implant surface, so the structural integration of peri-implant tissues that provide a firm seal around implants seems to be of interest when it comes to ensuring the survival of dental implants. To achieve a good epithelial barrier, the physicochemical characteristics of the surfaces of the restorative materials are of vital importance; therefore, the objective of this study is to analyse the histological behaviour of the peri-implant soft tissues in three different restorative materials. (2) Methods: Histological analysis of biopsied peri-implant keratinised mucosa, inflammatory epithelium and connective tissue in contact with a reinforced composite (BRILLIANT Crios), a cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate (TELIO CAD), and a hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic), restored on a customised Atlantis-type abutment (Dentsply Sirona) between 60 and 180 days after restoration. (3) Results: A greater number of cells per mm2 of keratinised epithelium is observed in the reinforced composite, which could indicate greater surface roughness with greater inflammatory response. In this way, the greater number of lymphocytes and the lateral cellular composition of the inflammatory cells confirm the greater inflammatory activity towards that material. The best material to rehabilitate was hybrid ceramic, as it shows a better cellular response. (4) Conclusions: Knowing the limitations of the proposed study, despite the fact that greater inflammation is observed in the reinforced composite relative to the other materials studied, no statistically significant differences were found.
(1) 背景：在讨论牙种植体维持成功时，微整合似乎备受关注。众所周知，由于种植体表面缺乏牙根结构，胶原纤维无法植入，因此在确保牙种植体存活方面，种植体周围组织围绕种植体形成牢固密封的结构整合似乎很重要。为了实现良好的上皮屏障，修复材料表面的物理化学特性至关重要；因此，本研究的目的是分析三种不同修复材料中种植体周围软组织的组织学行为。(2) 方法：对修复后60至180天之间，在定制的亚特兰蒂斯型基台上（登士柏西诺德）修复的增强复合材料（BRILLIANT Crios）、交联聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（TELIO CAD）和混合陶瓷（Vita Enamic）接触的种植体周围角化黏膜、炎性上皮和结缔组织进行活检组织学分析。(3) 结果：在增强复合材料中，每平方毫米角化上皮中观察到的细胞数量更多，这可能表明表面粗糙度更大，炎症反应更强。这样，淋巴细胞数量更多以及炎性细胞的侧向细胞组成证实了对该材料的炎症活性更强。用于修复的最佳材料是混合陶瓷，因为它显示出更好的细胞反应。(4) 结论：尽管已知本研究存在局限性，尽管相对于其他研究材料，在增强复合材料中观察到更大的炎症，但未发现统计学上的显著差异。
