Abstract
Selecting the most biocompatible orthodontic implant available on the market may be a major challenge, given the wide array of orthodontic devices currently available on the market. The latest scientific data have suggested that in vitro evaluations using oral cell lines provide reliable data regarding the toxicity of residual particles released by different types of orthodontic devices. In this regard, the in vitro biocompatibility of three different commercially available implants (stainless steel and titanium-based implants) was assessed. Methods: As an in vitro model, human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were employed to evaluate the cellular morphology, cell viability, and cytotoxicity by means of 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays at 24 h and 72 h post-exposure to test implants. Results: The results correlate the composition and topography of the implant surface with biological experimental evaluations related to directly affected cells (gingival fibroblasts) and toxicological results on blood vessels (hen’s egg test-chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) assay). The stainless steel implant exhibits a relative cytotoxicity against HGF cells, while the other two samples induced no significant alterations of HGF cells. Conclusion: Among the three test orthodontic implants, the stainless steel implant induced slight cytotoxic effects, thus increased vigilance is required in their clinical use, especially in patients with high sensitivity to nickel.
Highlights
Bone screws, known as temporary anchorage devices (TADs), were first introduced to orthodontics in 1983 by Creekmore and Eklund for treatment of the deep bite
In regard to the aspects presented above, the present study aims to reveal the biosafety profile of three different orthodontic implants by correlating the surface topography of each implant with the biological results obtained following their exposure to gingival fibroblasts, starting from the premise that the composition of the metal alloy together with the surface topography of the implant play an important role in ensuring the biocompatibility of the orthodontic devices
Regarding the biological profile of the stainless steel orthodontic implant, under the current experimental conditions, the results revealed that P1 samples induced some morphological alteration of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) cells, especially at 72 h post-exposure (Figure 3)
Summary
Known as temporary anchorage devices (TADs), were first introduced to orthodontics in 1983 by Creekmore and Eklund for treatment of the deep bite. Materials 2020, 13, 5690 for other orthodontic movements, such as space closure, correction of asymmetric cant, or en-masse retraction [1]. Another reason orthodontic implants are widely used is related to the aesthetic aspect, in which people are becoming more and more interested [2]. Orthodontic implants are small devices that are implanted by an easy surgery and increase the success rate of orthodontic treatment [3]. They have relatively large proportions that limit their functionality, they have some advantages, such as visibly decreased anatomic limitations, minimally invasive surgery, and reduced cost—aspects that increase patients’ compliance [4]. Orthodontic micro-implants are temporary anchorage devices (TADs) used for orthodontic treatment that possess a success rate of 80% [5]; the reliability and survival rate of orthodontic implants are directly influenced by primary stability, considered to be the most important parameter
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
