IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i21p7753-d433773.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Different Cleaning Protocols of Polymer-Based Prosthetic Materials on the Behavior of Human Gingival Fibroblasts

Author

Listed:
  • Vygandas Rutkunas

    (Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Rokas Borusevicius

    (Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Dominyka Liaudanskaite

    (Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Urte Jasinskyte

    (Institute of Biochemistry, Life Sciences Center, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Saulius Drukteinis

    (Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Virginija Bukelskiene

    (Institute of Biochemistry, Life Sciences Center, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Eitan Mijiritsky

    (Head and Neck and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel
    The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel)

Abstract

Dental implant abutment and prosthetic materials, their surface treatment, and cleaning modalities are important factors for the formation of a peri-implant soft tissue seal and long-term stability of bone around the implant. This study aimed to investigate the influence of a polymeric material surface cleaning method on the surface roughness, water contact angle, and human gingival fibroblasts (HGF) proliferation. Polymeric materials tested: two types of milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA-Ker and PMMA-Bre), three-dimensionally (3D) printed polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA-3D), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK). Titanium (Ti) and zirconia oxide ceramics (ZrO-HT) were used as positive controls. A conventional surface cleaning protocol (CCP) was compared to a multi-step research cleaning method (RCP). Application of the RCP method allowed to reduce S a values in all groups from 0.14–0.28 µm to 0.08–0.17 µm ( p < 0.05 in PMMA-Ker and PEEK groups). Moreover, the water contact angle increased in all groups from 74–91° to 83–101° ( p < 0.05 in the PEKK group), except ZrO-HT—it was reduced from 98.7 ± 4.5° to 69.9 ± 6.4° ( p < 0.05). CCP resulted in higher variability of HGF viability after 48 and 72 h. RCP application led to higher HGF viability in PMMA-3D and PEKK groups after 48 h, but lower for the PMMA-Ker group ( p < 0.05). After 72 h, no significant differences in HGF viability between both cleaning methods were observed. It can be concluded that the cleaning method of the polymeric materials affected surface roughness, contact angle, and HGF viability at 48 h.

Suggested Citation

  • Vygandas Rutkunas & Rokas Borusevicius & Dominyka Liaudanskaite & Urte Jasinskyte & Saulius Drukteinis & Virginija Bukelskiene & Eitan Mijiritsky, 2020. "The Effect of Different Cleaning Protocols of Polymer-Based Prosthetic Materials on the Behavior of Human Gingival Fibroblasts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7753-:d:433773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7753/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7753/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vygandas Rutkunas & Rokas Borusevicius & Evaldas Balciunas & Urte Jasinskyte & Milda Alksne & Egidijus Simoliunas & Stefan Zlatev & Vasilena Ivanova & Virginija Bukelskiene & Eitan Mijiritsky, 2022. "The Effect of UV Treatment on Surface Contact Angle, Fibroblast Cytotoxicity, and Proliferation with Two Types of Zirconia-Based Ceramics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-12, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7753-:d:433773. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.