Search

OBJECTIVE: The major challenge for contemporary dentistry is restoration of missing teeth; currently, dental implantation is the treatment of choice in this circumstance. In the present study, we assessed the interaction between implants and Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSCs) in vitro by means of 3D cell culture in order to better simulate physiological conditions. METHODS: Sorted CD34+ DPSCs were seeded onto dental implants having either a rough surface (TriVent) or one coated with a ceramic layer mimicking native bone (TiUnite). We evaluated preservation of DPSC viability during osteogenic differentiation by an MTT assay and compared mineralized matrix deposition with SEM analysis and histological staining; temporal expression of osteogenic markers was evaluated by RT-PCR and ELISA. RESULTS: Both surfaces are equally biocompatible, preserve DPSC viability, stimulate osteogenic differentiation, and increase the production of VEGF. A slight difference was observed between the two surfaces concerning the speed of DPSC differentiation. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study of the two implant surfaces suggests that TriVent, with its roughness, is capable of promoting cell differentiation a bit earlier than the TiUnite surface, although the latter promotes greater cell proliferation. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. KEYWORDS: Biocompatibility; Cell proliferation; DPSCs; Osteodifferentiation; Surface texture; Titanium implants Objective The major challenge for contemporary dentistry is restoration of missing teeth; currently, dental implantation is the treatment of choice in this circumstance. In the present study, we assessed the interaction between implants and Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSCs) in vitro by means of 3D cell culture in order to better simulate physiological conditions. Methods Sorted CD34+ DPSCs were seeded onto dental implants having either a rough surface (TriVent) or one coated with a ceramic layer mimicking native bone (TiUnite). We evaluated preservation of DPSC viability during osteogenic differentiation by an MTT assay and compared mineralized matrix deposition with SEM analysis and histological staining; temporal expression of osteogenic markers was evaluated by RT-PCR and ELISA. Results Both surfaces are equally biocompatible, preserve DPSC viability, stimulate osteogenic differentiation, and increase the production of VEGF. A slight difference was observed between the two surfaces concerning the speed of DPSC differentiation. Significance Our study of the two implant surfaces suggests that TriVent, with its roughness, is capable of promoting cell differentiation a bit earlier than the TiUnite surface, although the latter promotes greater cell proliferation.