Biocompatibility study of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics for esthetic dental abutments.
10.5051/jpis.2016.46.6.362
- Author:
Céline BRUNOT-GOHIN
1
;
Jean Luc DUVAL
;
Sandra VERBEKE
;
Kayla BELANGER
;
Isabelle PEZRON
;
Gérard KUGEL
;
Dominique LAURENT-MAQUIN
;
Sophie GANGLOFF
;
Christophe EGLES
Author Information
1. Laboratory of Biomaterials and Bone Site Inflammation, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France. celine.brunot-gohin@univ-reims.fr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Ceramics;
Dental abutments;
Dental esthetics;
Embryo culture techniques
- MeSH:
Biocompatible Materials;
Cell Adhesion;
Cell Movement;
Ceramics*;
Chickens;
Dental Abutments*;
Dental Implants;
Embryo Culture Techniques;
Epithelium;
Esthetics, Dental;
Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions;
Interferometry;
Lithium*;
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning;
Surgeons;
Tissue Adhesions;
Wound Healing;
Wounds and Injuries;
Zirconium*
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2016;46(6):362-371
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The increasing demand for esthetically pleasing results has contributed to the use of ceramics for dental implant abutments. The aim of this study was to compare the biological response of epithelial tissue cultivated on lithium disilicate (LS₂) and zirconium oxide (ZrO₂) ceramics. Understanding the relevant physicochemical and mechanical properties of these ceramics will help identify the optimal material for facilitating gingival wound closure. METHODS: Both biomaterials were prepared with 2 different surface treatments: raw and polished. Their physicochemical characteristics were analyzed by contact angle measurements, scanning white-light interferometry, and scanning electron microscopy. An organotypic culture was then performed using a chicken epithelium model to simulate peri-implant soft tissue. We measured the contact angle, hydrophobicity, and roughness of the materials as well as the tissue behavior at their surfaces (cell migration and cell adhesion). RESULTS: The best cell migration was observed on ZrO₂ ceramic. Cell adhesion was also drastically lower on the polished ZrO₂ ceramic than on both the raw and polished LS2. Evaluating various surface topographies of LS2 showed that increasing surface roughness improved cell adhesion, leading to an increase of up to 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that a biomaterial, here LS2, can be modified using simple surface changes in order to finely modulate soft tissue adhesion. Strong adhesion at the abutment associated with weak migration assists in gingival wound healing. On the same material, polishing can reduce cell adhesion without drastically modifying cell migration. A comparison of LS2 and ZrO2 ceramic showed that LS2 was more conducive to creating varying tissue reactions. Our results can help dental surgeons to choose, especially for esthetic implant abutments, the most appropriate biomaterial as well as the most appropriate surface treatment to use in accordance with specific clinical dental applications.
