Mathews Journal of Dentistry

2474-6843

Current Issue Volume 7, Issue 3 - 2023

In Vitro Analysis of Surface Treatment, Titanium and Zirconia Used in Prosthetic Dentistry, on Osteoblast Cultures

Renato Carlos Burger1,*, Elizabeth Ferreira Martinez2, Flávia Lucisano Botelho do Amaral1

Departamento de Dentística, Faculdade de Odontologia, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil

Departamento de Microbiologia, Faculdade de Odontologia, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil

*Corresponding Author: Renato Carlos Burger, Rua Otavio Tarquinio de Souza, 624 – Campo Belo – São Paulo – SP – Brazil – CEP 04613-002; Email: [email protected]

Received Date: October 13, 2023

Publication Date: December 04, 2023

Citation: Burger RC, et al. (2023). In Vitro Analysis of Surface Treatment, Titanium and Zirconia Used in Prosthetic Dentistry, on Osteoblast Cultures. Mathews J Dentistry. 7(3):41.

Copyright: Burger RC, et al. © (2023)

ABSTRACT

This In Vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of surface treatment on osteoblastic cells in terms of proliferation, viability and osteopontin expression. The Trypan blue, MTT vitality tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were used to assess the response of cell cultures to titanium surfaces and zirconia ceramics used in dental prosthodontics. The ultrastructural topographic features and cellular morphology on the different surfaces were assessed using scanning electron microscopy at 500X magnification (72 hours). The aforementioned surfaces were treated with aluminum oxide sandblasting (AO), silica-modified aluminum oxide (SMAO) and a control group based on non-sandblasted surfaces (MA). Quantitative data were tabulated and analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests at a significance level of 5%. The results showed that osteoblast proliferation was higher and significantly different on zirconia compared to titanium surfaces at 72 h, with no significant differences between surface treatments. Cell viability was significantly higher on OA-treated zirconia surface. Quantification of osteopontin was similar across all surfaces except for OA-treated surfaces, where a significantly lower concentration of osteopontin was observed. Photomicrographs showed increased roughness between treatments accompanied by different morphological features of the cells, according to surface type and surface treatment. In conclusion, all surfaces and treatments promoted cell proliferation and maintained cell viability in the time periods evaluated.

Keywords: Biomaterial, Osteoblasts, Surface treatment


Creative Commons License

© 2015 Mathews Open Access Journals. All Rights Reserved.

Open Access by Mathews Open Access Journals is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based On a Work at Mathewsopenaccess.com