Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The difference of fibroblast behavior on titanium substrata with different surface characteristics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Connective tissue, one of the main components of peri-implant soft tissue, is key to the formation of the peri-implant mucosal seal and helping to prevent epithelial ingrowth. Rough surfaces (Rs), machined surfaces (Ms) or microgrooved surface (MG) are used in the neck area of commercially available titanium implants. In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the influence of surface topography of titanium substratum on connective tissue fibroblasts to gain a better understanding of this effect. Fibroblasts were cultured on titanium plates with Rs, Ms and MG. Adhesion cell number at day 3 was compared and protein distribution of both F-actin and vinculin was determined to observe cellular structure and adhesion. Cell adhesion strength was compared on each surface. At day 3, the number of fibroblasts attached on each substratum was in the order of MG ≈ Ms > Rs. Fibroblasts strongly expressed vinculin in the peripheral area on Ms and MG, and showed strong F-actin architecture. Decreased expression of vinculin and weaker continuity of F-actin were observed on Rs. Fibroblasts on MG were aligned along the grooves, with a significantly higher cell density, whereas cells on Ms and Rs had no clear orientation. The cell adhesion strength was significantly lower on Rs, and no significant difference was seen between MG and Ms. Both MG and Ms showed greater adhesion cell numbers and adhesion strength of fibroblasts when compared with Rs at day 3. The cell density on MG was greater than those on other substrata.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, et al. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991;2:81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Linkevicius T, Apse P. Biologic width around implants. An evidence-based review. Stomatologija. 2008;10:27–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moon IS, Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Linder E, Lindhe J. The barrier between the keratinized mucosa and the dental implant. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 1999;26:658–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abrahamsson I, Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T, et al. The mucosal attachment to titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29:448–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eisenbarth E, Meyle J, Nachtigall W, Breme J. Influence of the surface structure of titanium materials on the adhesion of fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1399–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamilton DW, Oakley C, Jaeger NA, Brunette DM. Directional change produced by perpendicularly oriented microgrooves is microtubule-dependent for fibroblasts and epithelium. Cell Motil Cytoskelet. 2009;66:260–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Loesberg WA, te Riet J, van Delft FC, et al. The threshold at which substrate nanogroove dimensions may influence fibroblast alignment and adhesion. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3944–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loesberg WA, Walboomers XF, Bronkhorst EM, van Loon JJ, Jansen JA. The effect of combined simulated microgravity and microgrooved surface topography on fibroblasts. Cell Motil Cytoskelet. 2007;64:174–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Seunarine K, Curtis AS, Meredith DO, et al. A hierarchical response of cells to perpendicular micro- and nanometric textural cues. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci. 2009;8:219–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walboomers XF, Croes HJ, Ginsel LA, Jansen JA. Growth behavior of fibroblasts on microgrooved polystyrene. Biomaterials. 1998;19:1861–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Walboomers XF, Ginsel LA, Jansen JA. Early spreading events of fibroblasts on microgrooved substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51:529–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Walboomers XF, Monaghan W, Curtis AS, Jansen JA. Attachment of fibroblasts on smooth and microgrooved polystyrene. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;46:212–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodwin AE, Pauli BU. A new adhesion assay using buoyancy to remove non-adherent cells. J Immunol Methods. 1995;187:213–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hormia M, Könönen M. Immunolocalization of fibronectin and vitronectin receptors in human gingival fibroblasts spreading on titanium surfaces. J Periodontal Res. 1994;29:146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell CE, von Recum AF. Microtopography and soft tissue response. J Invest Surg. 1989;2:51–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunn GA, Brown AF. Alignment of fibroblasts on grooved surfaces described by a simple geometric transformation. J Cell Sci. 1986;83:313–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):172–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kokubu E, Hamilton DW, Inoue T, Brunette DM. Modulation of human gingival fibroblast adhesion, morphology, tyrosine phosphorylation, and ERK 1/2 localization on polished, grooved and SLA substratum topographies. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009;91:663–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim SY, Oh N, Lee MH, et al. Surface microgrooves and acid etching on titanium substrata alter various cell behaviors of cultured human gingival fibroblasts. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:262–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hormia M, Könönen M, Kivilahti J, Virtanen I. Immunolocalization of proteins specific for adhaerens junctions in human gingival epithelial cells grown on differently processed titanium surfaces. J Periodontal Res. 1991;26:491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Könönen M, Hormia M, Kivilahti J, Hautaniemi J, Thesleff I. Effect of surface processing on the attachment, orientation, and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts on titanium. J Biomed Mater Res. 1992;26:1325–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mierke CT, Kollmannsberger P, Zitterbart DP, et al. Vinculin facilitates cell invasion into three-dimensional collagen matrices. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:13121–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mierke CT, Kollmannsberger P, Zitterbart DP, et al. Mechano-coupling and regulation of contractility by the vinculin tail domain. Biophys J. 2008;94:661–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goldmann WH, Schindl M, Cardozo TJ, Ezzell RM. Motility of vinculin-deficient F9 embryonic carcinoma cells analyzed by video, laser confocal, and reflection interference contrast microscopy. Exp Cell Res. 1995;221:311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Subauste MC, Pertz O, Adamson ED, et al. Vinculin modulation of paxillin–FAK interactions regulates ERK to control survival and motility. J Cell Biol. 2004;165:371–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Saunders RM, Holt MR, Jennings L, et al. Role of vinculin in regulating focal adhesion turnover. Eur J Cell Biol. 2006;85:487–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson RP, Craig SW. F-actin binding site masked by the intramolecular association of vinculin head and tail domains. Nature. 1995;373:261–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Kanji Tsuru (Section of Biomaterials, Division of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Science, Kyushu University) for his technical support. The authors express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Yunia Dwi Rakhmatia (Division of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Science, Kyushu University), for her technical assistance. We appreciate for the technical support from the Research Support Center of the Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University. This study was supported in part by KAKENHI (#21390520) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Implant and Rehabilitative Dentistry, Division of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Science, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Akihiro Furuhashi, Yasunori Ayukawa, Ikiru Atsuta, Hideyuki Okawachi & Kiyoshi Koyano

Authors
  1. Akihiro Furuhashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasunori Ayukawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ikiru Atsuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hideyuki Okawachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kiyoshi Koyano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akihiro Furuhashi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Furuhashi, A., Ayukawa, Y., Atsuta, I. et al. The difference of fibroblast behavior on titanium substrata with different surface characteristics. Odontology 100, 199–205 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-011-0029-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-011-0029-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation