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

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.

Effectiveness and surface changes of different decontamination protocols at smooth and minimally rough titanium surfaces.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate titanium decontamination after different protocols while assessing changes in surface roughness, chemical composition, and wettability. METHODS: Ninety-six smooth (S) and 96 minimally rough (R) titanium microimplants were used. Pristine microimplants were reserved for negative control (S-nC/R-nC, n = 9), while the remaining microimplants were incubated in Escherichia coli culture. Non-decontaminated microimplants were used as positive control (S-pC/R-pC, n = 3). The other microimplants were divided into seven different decontamination protocols (12 S/R per group): 24% EDTA, 2% chlorhexidine (CHL), gauze soaked in 2% chlorhexidine (GCHL), gauze soaked in ultrapure water (GMQ), scaling (SC), titanium brush (TiB), and implantoplasty (IP). Contaminated areas were assessed by scanning electron microscope images, chemical composition by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, wettability by meniscus technique, and roughness by an optical profiler. RESULTS: Higher residual bacteria were observed in R-pC compared with S-pC (P <0.0001). When comparing S and R with their respective pC groups, the best results were obtained with GCHL, SC, TiB, and IP, with no difference between these protocols (P >0.05). Changes in surface roughness were observed after all treatments, with S/R-IP presenting the smoother and a less hydrophilic surface (P <0.05). Apart from IP protocol, all the other groups presented a more hydrophilic surface in R than in S microimplants (P <0.003). All decontamination protocols resulted in a lower percentage of superficial Ti when compared with S/R-nC (P <0.002). CONCLUSIONS: All decontamination protocols resulted in changes in roughness, wettability, and chemical composition, but GCHL, SC, TiB, an IP presented the best decontamination outcomes.