Biological Response of Soft Tissues to Three Abutment Materials Titanium, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate. An In Vitro Comparative Study

NICOLINI M; GALDOPORPORA J; CANELLADA A.; MACCHI R; FRIEDMAN S; CALVO GUIRADO J; IBAÑEZ J

Journal of Osseointegration

Ariesdue Srl

Año: 2024 vol. 16 p. 72 - 80

Aim The implant-abutment/emergence connection, and thereforethe relationship with soft and hard tissues, is an important factorthat determines the long-term success of dental implants in clinicalpractice. The purpose of this study was to compare the biologicalresponse of murine fibroblasts L929 when exposed to threematerials: Titanium, Zirconia, and Lithium Disilicate (DSL), used asimplant abutment materials.Materials and methods Samples of titanium, Zirconia, andDSL were obtained. Prior to material characterization by X-rayfluorescence and Raman spectroscopy, the samples were sterilized ina steam autoclave at a temperature of 121 °C for 30 minutes. Murinefibroblasts L929 were seeded for cell viability measurement. Themetabolic activity was measured at 24 hours and 48 hours of cultureusing the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazoliumbromide (MTT) assay. The results were analyzed using SPSS v. 20.0.Results At 24 hours, an increase in viability was observed, althoughthere was no significant difference among the three studied materials(p=0.564). At 48 hours vs. 24 hours, DSL showed the highest degreeof cell viability (p=0.0003), followed by Zirconia (p=0.027), and thenTitanium (p=0.056). The cell viability values for titanium, Zirconia,and DSL were 116%, 132%, and 172%, respectively. There was noevidence of cytotoxicity.Conclusion Cell viability in response to the studied implantabutment materials could anticipate the biological response, thestability of the different materials in relation to soft tissues, andtheir connection. Other factors such as biomechanics and bacterialadhesion should be considered when choosing a material.