CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Understanding biomaterial-tissue interface quality: combined in vitro evaluation

Open access
Gasik, Michael·2017·Science and Technology of Advanced Materials
DOI 10.1080/14686996.2017.1348872PMC PMC5613488
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges in the development of new medical products and devices remains in providing maximal patient safety, efficacy and suitability for the purpose. A 'good quality' of the tissue-implant interface is one of the most critical factors for the success of the implant integration. In this paper this challenge is being discussed from the point of view of basic stimuli combination to experimental testing. The focus is in particular on bacterial effects on tissue-implant interaction (for different materials). The demonstration of the experimental evaluation of the tissue-implant interface is for dental abutment with mucosal contact. This shows that testing of the interface quality could be the most relevant in controlled conditions, which mimic as possible the clinical applications, but consider variables being under the control of the evaluator.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14686996.2017.1348872

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. [1]von Recum AF, editor. Handbook of biomaterials evaluation: scientific, technical, and clinical testing of implant materials. USA: Taylor & Francis; 1998.
  2. [3]Bailey J, Thew M, Balls M An analysis of the use of animal models in predicting human toxicology and drug safety. ATLA. 2014; 42: 181– 189. 25068930
  3. [4]Patronek GJ, Rauch A Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007; 230: 37– 43. 10.2460/javma.230.1.37 17199490 · DOI
  4. [5]Reifenrath J, Angrisani N, Lalk M, et al Replacement, refinement and reduction: necessaity of standardization and computational models for long bone fracture repair in animals. J Biomed Mater Res. 2014; 102A: 2884– 2900. 10.1002/jbm.a.v102.8 23946187 · DOI
  5. [6]van Mow C, Huiskes R Basic orthopedic biomechanics and mechanobiology. USA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
  6. [7]Katsikogianni M, Missirlis YF Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating bacteria-material interactions. Europ Cells Materials. 2004; 8: 37– 57. 10.22203/eCM 15593018 · DOI
  7. [8]Lo CM, Wang HB, Dembo M, et al Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys J. 2000; 79: 144– 152. 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76279-5 10866943 PMC1300921 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Bilotsky Y, Gasik M Modelling of poro-visco-elastic biological systems. J Phys Conf Series. 2015; 633: 021234.
  9. [10]Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang Y-L Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science. 2005; 310: 1139– 1143. 10.1126/science.1116995 16293750 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [11]Saha K, Keung AJ, Irwin EF, et al Substrate modulus directs neural stem cell behavior. Biophys J. 2008; 95: 4426– 4438. 10.1529/biophysj.108.132217 18658232 PMC2567955 · DOI
  11. [12]Gbejuade HO, Lovering AM, Webb JC The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthopaed. 2015; 86: 147– 158. 10.3109/17453674.2014.966290 PMC4404764 25238433 · DOI
  12. [13]Kapadia BH, Berg RA, Daley JA, et al Periprosthetic joint infection. Lancet. 2015; 387: 386– 394. 26135702
  13. [14]Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, et al Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(Suppl. 1): 61– 65. 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022 22554729 · DOI
  14. [15]Baek SH Identification and preoperative optimization of risk factors to prevent periprosthetic joint infection. World J Orthop. 2014; 5: 362– 367. 10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.362 25035840 PMC4095030 · DOI
  15. [16]Perdreau-Remington F, Stefanik D, Peters G, et al A four-year prospective study on microbial ecology of explanted prosthetic hips in 52 patients with “aseptic” prosthetic joint loosening. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996; 15: 160– 165. 10.1007/BF01591491 8801090 · DOI
  16. [17]Portillo ME, Salvadó M, Alier A, et al Prosthesis failure within 2 years of implantation is highly predictive of infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 3672– 3678. 10.1007/s11999-013-3200-7 23904245 PMC3792275 · DOI
  17. [18]Bereket W, Hemalatha K, Getenet B, et al Update on bacterial nosocomial infections. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012; 16: 1039– 1044. 22913154
  18. [19]Meani E, Romanò C, Crosby L, et al, editors. Infection and local treatment in orthopedic surgery. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer; 2007 p. 396.
  19. [20]Simchi A, Tamjid E, Pishbin F, et al Recent progress in inorganic and composite coatings with bactericidal capability for orthopedic applications. Nanomedicine. 2011; 7: 22– 39. 10.1016/j.nano.2010.10.005 21050895 · DOI
  20. [21]Pye AD, Lockhart DEA, Dawson MP, et al A review of dental implants and infection. J Hospital Infect. 2009; 72: 104– 110. 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.02.010 19329223 · DOI
  21. [22]An YH, Friedman RJ Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 43: 338– 348. 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4636 9730073 · DOI
  22. [23]Hampton AA, Sherertz RJ Vascular-access infections in hospitalized patients. Surg Clin North Am. 1998; 68: 57– 71. 3277308
  23. [24]Hospenthal DR, Rinaldi MG, editors. Diagnosis and treatment of fungal infections. 2nd ed. Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer; 2015 p. 300.
  24. [25]Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, et al The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 1546– 1554. 10.1056/NEJMoa022139 12700374 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [26]Green RJ, Davies MC, Roberts CJ, et al Competitive protein adsorption as observed by surface plasmon resonance. Biomaterials. 1999; 20: 385– 391. 10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00201-4 10048412 · DOI
  26. [27]Volfson D, Cookson S, Hasty J, et al Biomechanical ordering of dense cell populations. PNAS. 2008; 105: 15346– 15351. 10.1073/pnas.0706805105 18832176 PMC2563119 · DOI
  27. [28]Peterson BW, He Y, Ren Y, et al Viscoelasticity of biofilms and their recalcitrance to mechanical and chemical challenges. FEMS Microbiology Rev. 2015; 39: 234– 245. 10.1093/femsre/fuu008 PMC4398279 25725015 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [29]Rimondini L, Cochis A, Varoni E, et al Chapter: “Biofilm formation on implants and prosthetic dental materials” In: Antoniac IV, editor. Handbook of bioceramics and biocomposites. Switzerland: Springer; 2015 p. 991– 1027.
  29. [30]Rimondini L, Farè S, Brambilla E, et al The effect of surface roughness on early in vivo plaque colonization on titanium. J Periodontol. 1997; 68: 556– 562. 10.1902/jop.1997.68.6.556 9203099 · DOI
  30. [31]Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, et al Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(Suppl 2): 68– 81. 10.1111/clr.2006.17.issue-s2 16968383 · DOI
  31. [32]Crick CR, Ismail S, Pratten J, et al An investigation into bacterial attachment to an elastomeric superhydrophobic surface prepared via aerosol assisted deposition. Thin Solid Films. 2011; 519: 3722– 3727. 10.1016/j.tsf.2011.01.282 · DOI
  32. [33]Badihi Hauslich L, Sela MN, Steinberg D, et al The adhesion of oral bacteria to modified titanium surfaces: role of plasma proteins and electrostatic forces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 49– 56. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x 22150723 · DOI
  33. [34]Puckett SD, Raimondo T, Webster TJ The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. Biomaterials. 2010; 31: 706– 713. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.081 19879645 · DOI
  34. [35]Raulio M, Järn M, Ahola J, et al Microbe-repelling coated stainless steel analysed by field emission scanning electron microscopy and physicochemical methods. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008; 35: 751– 760. 10.1007/s10295-008-0343-8 18379832 · DOI
  35. [36]Donlan RM New approaches for the characterization of prosthetic joint biofilms. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 437: 12– 19. 10.1097/01.blo.0000175120.66051.29 16056020 · DOI
  36. [37]Cadosch D, Al-Mushaiqri MS, Gautschi OP, et al Biocorrosion and uptake of titanium by human osteoclasts. J Biomed Mater Research. 2010; 95A: 1004– 1010. 10.1002/jbm.a.v95a:4 20872748 · DOI
  37. [38]Souza JCM, Henriques M, Oliveira R, et al Do oral biofilms influence the wear and corrosion behavior of titanium? Biofouling. 2010; 26: 471– 478. 10.1080/08927011003767985 20383799 · DOI
  38. [39]Niinomi M, editor. Metals for biomedical devices. UK: Woodhead Publ.; 2010 p. 420 10.1533/9781845699246 · DOI
  39. [40]Okazaki Y, Rao S, Tateishi T, et al Cytocompatibility of various metal and development of new titanium alloys for medical implants. Mater Sci Eng A. 1998; 243: 250– 256. 10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00809-5 · DOI
  40. [41]Long M, Rack HJ Titanium alloys in total joint replacement – a materials science perspective. Biomaterials. 1998; 19: 1621– 1639. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00146-4 9839998 · DOI
  41. [42]Niinomi M Biologically and mechanically biocompatible titanium alloys. Mater Trans. 2008; 49: 2170– 2178. 10.2320/matertrans.L-MRA2008828 · DOI
  42. [43]Mabboux F, Ponsonnet L, Morrier JJ, et al Surface free energy and bacterial retention to saliva-coated dental implants materials: an in vitro study. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 2004; 38: 199– 205. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2004.08.002 15555904 · DOI
  43. [44]Shibata Y, Tanimoto Y, Maruyama N, et al A review of improved fixation methods for dental implants. Part I: Surface optimization for rapid osseointegration. J Prostodont Res. 2015; 59: 20– 33. 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.11.007 25530606 · DOI
  44. [45]Shibata Y, Tanimoto Y, Maruyama N, et al A review of improved fixation methods for dental implants. Part II: Biomechanical integrity at bone–implant interface. J Prostodont Res. 2015; 59: 84– 95. 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.01.003 25797023 · DOI
  45. [46]Wall I, Donos N, Carlqvist K, et al Modified titanium surfaces promote accelerated osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells in vitro. Bone. 2009; 45: 17– 26. 10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.662 19332166 · DOI
  46. [47]Borsari V, Giavaresi G, Fini M, et al Comparative in vitro study on ultra-high roughness and dense titanium coating. Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 4948– 4955. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.010 15769530 · DOI
  47. [49]Gasik M, Van Mellaert L, Pierron D, et al Reduction of biofilm infection risks and promotion of osteointegration for optimized surfaces of titanium implants. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2012; 1: 117– 127. 10.1002/adhm.201100006 23184696 · DOI
  48. [50]Wong JY, Bronzino JD Biomaterials. Boca Raton London New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis; 2007 p. 296 10.1201/9780849378898 · DOI
  49. [51]Kurtz SM, editor. PEEK biomaterials handbook. William Andrew: Elsevier; 2012 p. 300.
  50. [54]Lansman S, Paakko P, Ryhanen J, et al Poly-L/D lactide (PLDLA) 96/4 fibrous implants: histological evaluation in the subcutis of experimental design. J Craniofac Surg. 2006; 17: 1121– 1128. 10.1097/01.scs.0000231627.33382.85 17119416 · DOI
  51. [55]Haaparanta AM, Jarvinen E, Cengiz IF, et al Preparation and characterization of collagen/PLA, chitosan/PLA, and collagen/chitosan/PLA hybrid scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014; 25: 1129– 1136. 10.1007/s10856-013-5129-5 24375147 · DOI
  52. [56]Rochford ETJ, Jaekel DJ, Hickok NJ, et al Chapter “Bacterial interactions with polyaryletheretherketone In: Kurtz SM, editor. PEEK biomaterials handbook. William Andrew: Elsevier; 2012 p. 93– 117. 10.1016/B978-1-4377-4463-7.10008-9 · DOI
  53. [57]Whitehead KA, Verran J The effect of surface topography on the retention of microorganisms. Food Bioprod Process. 2006; 84: 253– 259. 10.1205/fbp06035 · DOI
  54. [58]Harris LG, Meredith DO, Eschbach L, et al Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to standard micro-rough and electropolished implant materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007; 18: 1151– 1156. 10.1007/s10856-007-0143-0 17268867 · DOI
  55. [59]Verheyen CCPM, Dhert WJA, de Blieck-Hogervorst JMA, et al Adherence to a metal, polymer and composite by Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Biomaterials. 1993; 14: 383– 391. 10.1016/0142-9612(93)90059-B 8507783 · DOI
  56. [60]DiGiulio M, D’Ercole S, Zara S, et al Streptococcus mitis/human gingival fibroblasts co-culture: the best natural association in answer to the 2-hydroxoethyl methacrylate release. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand. 2011; 120: 139– 146. PMC3443379 22229269
  57. [61]Hosman AH, Bulstra SK, Sjollema J, et al The influence of Co-Cr and UHMWPE particles on infection persistence: an in vivo study in mice. J Orthop Res. 2012; 30: 341– 347. 10.1002/jor.v30.3 21866572 · DOI
  58. [62]Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrasi A, et al Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study. Intern J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 793– 798. 12507238
  59. [63]Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, et al Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: an in vivo human study. J Periodontol. 2004; 75: 292– 296. 10.1902/jop.2004.75.2.292 15068118 · DOI
  60. [64]Scotti R, Kantorski KZ, Monaco C, et al SEM evaluation of in situ early bacterial colonization on a Y-TZP ceramic: a pilot study. Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 419– 422. 17695877
  61. [65]Clement JL, Jarrett PS Antibacterial silver. Met Based Drugs. 1994; 1: 467– 482. 18476264 PMC2364932
  62. [66]Matsumura Y, Yoshikata K, Kunisaki S, et al Mode of bactericidal action of silver zeolite and its comparison with that of silver nitrate. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003; 69: 4278– 4281. 10.1128/AEM.69.7.4278-4281.2003 12839814 PMC165194 · DOI · Paper page
  63. [67]Secinti KD, Ozalp H, Attar A, et al Nanoparticle silver ion coatings inhibit biofilm formation on titanium implants. J Clin Neurosci. 2011; 18: 391– 395. 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.06.022 21256031 · DOI
  64. [68]Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Loli V, et al Does antibiotic prophylaxis at implant placement decrease early implant failures? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010; 2: 101– 110. 20623035
  65. [69]Rompen E, Domken O, Degidi M, et al The effect of material characteristics, of surface topography and of implant components and connections on soft tissue integration: a literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(suppl. 2): 55– 67. 10.1111/clr.2006.17.issue-s2 16968382 · DOI
  66. [70]Nanci A Ten Cate’s Oral Histology: Development, structure and function. 8th ed Elsevier; 2013 p. 400.
  67. [71]Dudic A, Kiliaridis S, Mombelli A, et al Composition changes in gingival crevicular fluid during orthodontic tooth movement: comparisons between tension and compression sides. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006; 114: 416– 422. 10.1111/eos.2006.114.issue-5 17026508 · DOI
  68. [72]Närhi H Characterization of soft tissue adhesion on the surface of dental biomaterials [ M.Sc. Thesis]. Finland: Aalto University; 2016 p. 97.
  69. [73]Iglhaut G, Schwarz F, Winter RR, et al Epithelial attachment and downgrowth on dental implant abutments - A comprehensive review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014; 26: 324– 331. 10.1111/jerd.2014.26.issue-5 24612047 · DOI
  70. [75]Byrne G Fundamentals of implant dentistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2014 p. 264.
  71. [76]Lindhe J, Berglundh T The interface between the mucosa and the implant. Periodontol. 1998; 17: 47– 54. 10.1111/prd.1998.17.issue-1 10337312 · DOI
  72. [77]Boas Nogueira AV, Nokhbehsaim M, Eick S, et al Biomechanical loading modulates proinflammatory and bone resorptive mediators in bacterial-stimulated PDL cells. Mediators Inflamm. 2014 article ID 425421. PMC4058179 24976684
  73. [78]Krishnan V, Davidovitch Z On a path to unfolding the biological mechanisms of orthodontic tooth movement. J Dental Res. 2009; 88: 597– 608. 10.1177/0022034509338914 19641146 · DOI
  74. [79]Preis V, Behr M, Kolbeck C, et al Wear performance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains. Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 796– 804. 10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.001 21524788 · DOI
  75. [80]Gasik M Advances in biomaterials simulation and evaluation procedures. Proc 1st Intern Symp On Creation of Life Innovation Materials, JWRI, Osaka, Japan. 2016; 3: 3– 4.
  76. [81]Gasik M New BEST - biomaterials enhanced simulation test. ALTEX Proc. 2014; 3: 33– 34.
  77. [83]Natali AN, Pavan PG, Scarpa C Numerical analysis of tooth mobility: formulation of a non-linear constitutive law for the periodontal ligament. Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 623– 629. 10.1016/j.dental.2003.08.003 15236936 · DOI
  78. [84]Lin JD, Lee J, Özcoban H, et al Biomechanical adaptation of the bone-periodontal ligament (PDL)-tooth fibrous joint as a consequence of disease. J Biomech. 2014; 47: 2102– 2114. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.10.059 24332618 PMC4021007 · DOI
  79. [85]Abdulmajeed AA, Willberg J In vitro assessment of the soft tissue / implant interface using porcine gingival explants. J Mater Sci Mater Medicine. 2015; 26: 1– 7. 25589208
  80. [86]Kocen R, Gasik M, Gantar A, et al Viscoelastic behaviour of hydrogel-based composites for tissue engineering under mechanical load. Biomed Mater. 2017; 12: 025004 10.1088/1748-605X/aa5b00 28106535 · DOI
  81. [87]Gasik M, Hiropoulos I, Zühlke A, et al Biomechanical comparison for commercial and novel scaffolds for articular cartilage repair. Orthopaed Proc. 2017; 99B(Supp. 1): 79.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gasik, M.
Affiliations
Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Gasik, Michael
ORCID
Gasik, Michael
Venue
Science and Technology of Advanced Materials
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-07-31
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
550-562
ISSN
  • 1468-6996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-5514
DOI
10.1080/14686996.2017.1348872
PMC
PMC5613488
OpenAlex
W2739950869
Cited by
55
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science and Technology of Advanced Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Finnish Agency for Innovation (40190/13)
  • Tekes (40190/13)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
implant-tissue interface, biomaterial-tissue interaction, implant integration, implant abutments, in vitro evaluation, medical device safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review