ABSTRACT
Background: The goal of this in vitro study was to compare three different surfaces: two types of implant surfaces commercially available ([a] smooth/machined and [b] acid-treated surface) versus (c) anodized surface. Discs were manufactured with commercially pure titanium (CP) grade IV, which were subsequently analyzed by scanning microscopy and fibroblastic and osteoblastic cell cultures. Methods: Ninety-nine discs (5 × 2 mm) were manufactured in titanium grade IV and received different surface treatments: (i) Mach group: machined; (ii) AA group: double acid etch; and (iii) AN group: anodizing treatment. Three discs from each group were analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to obtain surface topography images and qualitatively analyzed by EDS. Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts and pre-osteoblastic cells (MC3T3-E1 lineage) were used to investigate each group's biological response (n = 10/cellular type). The data were compared statistically using the ANOVA one-way test, considered as a statistically significant difference p < 0.05. Results: The AA group had numerous micropores with diameters between 5 and 10 µm, while nanopores between 1 and 5 nm were measured in the AN group. The EDX spectrum showed a high titanium concentration in all the analyzed samples. The contact angle and wetting tension were higher in the AA, whereas similar results were observed for the other groups. A lower result was observed for base width in the AA, which was higher in the other two groups. The AN showed the best values in the fibroblast cells, followed by Mach and AA; whereas, in the culture of the MC3T3 cells, the result was precisely the opposite (AA > Mach > AN). There was similar behavior for cell adhesion for the test groups (Mach and AN), with greater adhesion of Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts compared to MC3T3 cells; in the AA group, there was greater adherence for MC3T3 cells compared to Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts. Conclusions: The findings suggest that different surface characteristics can produce different biological responses, possibly cell-line dependent. These findings have important implications for the design of implantable medical devices, where the surface characteristics can significantly impact its biocompatibility.
ABSTRACT
O objetivo deste trabalho foi apresentar uma revisão da literatura sobre a proteína óssea morfogenética tipo 2 (BMP-2) e seu efeito no aumento ósseo alveolar. A proteína óssea morfogenética (BMP) foi identificada, em 1965, por um norte-americano chamado Marshal Urist, que mostrou que essa proteína, extraída da cortical óssea bovina, poderia induzir a formação de novo osso quando implantada em locais não ósseos. Atualmente, muitos trabalhos têm estudado a regeneração óssea através do uso de BMPs em substituição aos enxertos ósseos. O presente estudo conclui que a proteína óssea morfogenética é capaz de induzir neoformação óssea de maneira eficaz, tornando-se uma alternativa na substituição dos enxertos ósseos e a necessidade da descoberta de novos carreadores facilitando a estabilidade mecânica da BMP-2 no leito receptor.
The aim of this paper is to review the literature about bone morphogenetic protein type 2 (BMP-2) and on the effect in the alveolar bone augmentation. In 1965, the BMP was isolated by Marshal Urist, who showed that this protein extracted from bone narrow could induce bone neoformation when implanted in sites without bone cells. Recently, a lot of studies have been looking for bone regeneration using BMPs without bone grafts. The present study it was concluded that the bone morphogenetic protein induces bone neoformation, being an alternative as a substitute to bone grafts and that new carrier discovery is necessary to smooth stability of this carriers in receptor site.
