We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 5     19. Sep. 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 5  (19.09.2017)

Page 976-984, doi:10.11607/jomi.5630, PubMed:28906501

Impact of Cleaning Procedures on Adhesion of Living Cells to Three Abutment Materials
Mehl, Christian / Kern, Matthias / Zimmermann, Anna / Harder, Sönke / Huth, Steven / Selhuber-Unkel, Christine
Purpose: To test the adhesion properties of live gingival fibroblasts to three different implant abutment materials after five different cleaning procedures.
Materials and Methods: Highly polished discs of lithium disilicate (LS), zirconium dioxide (Zr), and titanium alloy (Ti) were fabricated. The specimens were cleaned by one of five different methods: steam (S), argon plasma (AP), ultrasound and disinfection (UD), ultrasound and sterilization in an autoclave (UA), or photofunctionalization with high-intensity ultraviolet light (PF). Cell detachment force (adhesion) was measured by single-cell force spectroscopy, which is a method to quantify cell adhesion at the single cell level. Data were statistically analyzed using parametric tests (analysis of variance [ANOVA], t tests).
Results: Cell detachment forces in the low nN regime were recorded in all experiments. Significant differences in cell adhesion on the different materials were found as a function of the cleaning method (P ≤ .0001). For LS abutments, no significant differences between the cleaning methods could be found (P > .05). For Zr specimens, the AP method showed the highest cell detachment forces, followed by UD, PF, S, and UA (S/UD, S/UA, S/PF, AP/UD, and UD/PF were not significantly different from each other). For Ti abutments, UD showed the highest cell detachment forces, followed by S, AP, and UA/PF (S/UD, S/UA, S/PF, AP/U, and UA/PF were not significantly different from each other).
Conclusion: All cleaning methods provided comparable cell detachment forces for LS abutments. AP/PF or ultrasonic cleaning were the most suitable methods for strong cell adhesion on Zr. UD provided the best cell adhesion for Ti.

Keywords: cell adhesion, ceramic, cleaning methods, dentin, lithium disilicate, physico-chemical properties, resin cement, single-cell force spectroscopy, surface treatment, titanium alloy, zirconium dioxide