Abstract
ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate human osteoblasts (HOB) response towards different dental implant abutment materials. MethodsFive dental implant abutment materials were investigated: (1) titanium (Ti), (2) titanium coated nitride (TiN), (3) cobalt chromium (CoCr), (4) zirconia (ZrO₂), and (5) modified polyether ether ketone (m-PEEK). HOBs were cultured, expanded, and seeded according to the supplier’s protocol (PromoCell, UK). Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using Alamar Blue (alamarBlue) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) colorimetric assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (significance was determined as p < 0.05 for all tests). ResultsAll the investigated materials showed high and comparable initial proliferation activities apart from ZrO₂ (46.92%), with P% of 79.91%, 68.77%, 73.20%, and 65.46% for Ti, TiN, CoCr, and m-PEEK, respectively. At day 10, all materials exhibited comparable and lower P% than day 1 apart from TiN (70.90%) with P% of 30.22%, 40.64%, 37.27%, and 50.65% for Ti, CoCr, ZrO₂, and m-PEEK, respectively. The cytotoxic effect of the investigated materials was generally low throughout the whole experiment. At day 10, the cytotoxicity % was 7.63%, 0.21%, 13.30%, 5.32%, 8.60% for Ti, TiN, CoCr, ZrO₂, and m-PEEK. The Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Method highlighted significant material and time effects on cell proliferation and cytotoxicity, and a significant interaction (p < 0.0001) between the tested materials. Notably, TiN and m-PEEK showed improved HOB proliferation activity and cytotoxic levels than the other investigated materials. In addition, a non-significant negative correlation between viability and cytotoxicity was found for all tested materials. Ti (p = 0.07), TiN (p = 0.28), CoCr (p = 0.15), ZrO₂ (p = 0.17), and m-PEEK (p = 0.12). SignificanceAll the investigated materials showed excellent biocompatibility properties with more promising results for the newly introduced TiN and m-PEEK as alternatives to the traditionally used dental implant and abutment materials.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
