To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Cellular responses to cob… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Cellular responses to cobalt-chrome and CP titanium - an in vitro comparison of frameworks for implant-retained oral prostheses

Journal article
Authors Lars Hjalmarsson
Jan-Ivan Smedberg
Gunilla Aronsson
Ann Wennerberg
Published in Swedish Dental Journal
Volume 35
Issue 4/11
Pages 169-244
Publication year 2011
Published at Institute of Odontology
Institute of Odontology, Section 2
Pages 169-244
Language en
Links www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2237230...
Keywords Viability, epithelial cells, fibroblasts, cobalt-chrome, CP titanium.
Subject categories Oral prosthetics

Abstract

The responses of cell types in peri-implant tissues to cobalt-chrome and titanium were studied in vitro. Cylinders were made from both a cobalt-chrome alloy and commercially pure titanium (length 6 mm, diameter 7.9 mm). Plastic tubes were placed over the cylinders to create cell culture wells, in which human epithelial cells or mouse fibroblasts were cultivated. Cell viability was studied using the Alamar Blue™ method. The surface structure of two samples of each material was analyzed with optical interferometry. The morphology of cells grown on cylinders of each material was studied with scanning electronic microscopy. Epithelial cells and fibroblasts in the titanium group were more viable than those in the cobalt-chrome group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively). The titanium surfaces had a greater height deviation (Sa, p = 0.027) but were less dense (Sds, p = 0.044) than the cobalt-chrome group. The scanning electronic microscopy revealed no major deviations from normal cell morphology. Within the limitations of the present study, the findings indicate that epithelial cells as well as fibroblasts have a stronger negative response to cobalt-chrome alloy than to titanium. We suggest that these differences can be explained only by the material per se and not by the minor differences in surface structure. Further and clinical studies are needed to confirm the significance of these findings.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?