Abstract
Objectives
The long-term success of dental implants is established by literature. Although clinically well defined, the complex genetic pathways underlying osseointegration have not yet been fully elucidated. Furthermore, patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis are considered to present as higher risk for implant failure. Porous tantalum trabecular metal (PTTM), an open-cell porous biomaterial, is suggested to present enhanced biocompatibility and osteoconductivity. The goal of this study was to evaluate the expression patterns of a panel of genes closely associated with osteogenesis and wound healing in osteopenic patients receiving either traditional titanium (Ti) or PTTM cylinders to assess the pathway of genes activation in the early phases of osseointegration.
Material and methods
Implant cylinders made of Ti and PTTM were placed in osteopenic volunteers. At 2- and 4 weeks of healing, one Ti and one PTTM cylinder were removed from each subject for RT-PCR analysis using osteogenesis PCR array.
Results
Compared to Ti, PTTM-associated bone displayed upregulation of bone matrix proteins, BMP/TGF tisuperfamily, soluble ligand and integrin receptors, growth factors, and collagen genes at one or both time points. Histologically, PTTM implants displayed more robust osteogenesis deposition and maturity when compared to Ti implants from the same patient.
Conclusions
Our results indicate that PTTM properties could induce an earlier activation of genes associated with osteogenesis in osteopenic patients suggesting that PTTM implants may attenuate the relative risk of placing dental implants in this population.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The use of dental implants for the treatment of missing teeth is considered a safe, reliable, and effective alternative to conventional prostheses. Despite the well-documented promise of predictability, however, implant failures still occur.1,2,3,4 In the clinical environment, the long-term success of dental implants is predicated on the ability to successfully achieve and maintain osseointegration.5,6,7 This phenomenon is both a functional and structural relationship between bone and the outermost surface of a load-bearing implant. Successful dental implant osseointegration has been well-defined clinically and is measured by a lack of increasing relative mobility between the implant and the surrounding trabecular bone after implant placement.8,9
Despite some early studies that investigate the complex pathways underlying the phenomenon of osseointegration, the genetic cascade of this process in vivo has yet to be fully elucidated in both healthy human subjects and those presenting with relative risk factors for implant failure.10,11,12,13,14,15,16 This includes patients presenting with a history of radiation or chemotherapy, smoking, poorly controlled diabetes, and bone metabolic disease such as osteopenia/osteoporosis.17,18,19,20,21 A recent meta-analysis of implant failure observed the clear risk for patients with a history of smoking or radiotherapy; however, the report suggested that the risk for patients with diabetes or osteopenia/osteoporosis required additional study.22 While several studies have demonstrated that the successful osseointegration of titanium dental implants can be achieved in diabetic individuals with well-controlled glycemic levels,23,24 others have reported that the healing process was negatively associated in patients diagnosed with diabetes.17,25,26,27
Chronic bone metabolic disorders such as osteopenia and osteoporosis are highly prevalent in older patients and are expected to increase in prevalence as patients have longer life expectancy.28,29,30,31 Osteopenia, previously referred to as low bone density or low bone mass, is defined by lower bone mineral density (BMD) T scores (grams of mineral per area or volume) between −2.5 and −1.0. Using this classification, nearly 50% of all women over 50 years old are osteopenic compared with 10% of the population suffering from more severe category of osteoporosis.30,32,33,34 Osteoporosis is characterized by altered trabecular bone strength, reduced capacity for bone regeneration and has been reported to present a risk for implant failure.35,36 Epidemiologically, women with osteopenia/osteoporosis are at significantly higher lifetime risk of partial edentulism when compared to women with normal BMD.37,38 In vivo modeling of osteoporosis in rats displayed less bone-implant contact and lower BMD; however, the current literature on the success of dental implants in osteopenia/osteoporotic patients is often contradictory.39,40,41,42,43,44 Thus, osteopenia/osteoporosis is not considered an absolute contraindication for implant placement;28,45,46 however, any concurrent medical histories including smoking, current, and recent radiotherapy, or the use of antiresorptive drugs present an additional risk of implant failure.22,47,48
For years, improving osseointegration among healthy and at-risk patients has been a significant goal. This has led to improvements in both surgical protocols and implant design, including changes to the chemistry or topography of the implant surface.49,50 Recently, focus has shifted to the application of porous tantalum trabecular metal (PTTM) as a surface and design for titanium implants, both orally and orthopedically.51,52,53,54,55,56,57 Tantalum metal displays superior biocompatible and its biochemical, and biomechanical properties that encourage osseointegration just as titanium. Unlike the rigid titanium, tantalum metal has a modulus of elasticity comparable to the surrounding trabecular bone. Tantalum metal also presents with improved frictional properties and is characterized by a high resistance to acid corrosion.51,58,59 In addition, when tantalum metal is utilized as a dental implant surface enhancement, it is manufactured to mimic the three-dimensional, open-cell structure of trabecular bone.60,61 Such porosity allows for its enhanced osteoconductivity and neovascularization, and permits bone to actually anchor onto the outer surface and inside the interconnected pores of PTTM.62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70 What remains unknown is whether PTTM implants are able to more robustly induce osseointegration in patients with relative risk factors.
In this study, we selectively examined genetic pathways associated with osseous wound healing using real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and histology to compare the PTTM vs. titanium metal implants in osteopenic patients. Here we show both genetically and histologically that osteopenic patients treated with PTTM implants display enhanced osseous wound healing by early regulation of specific osseoinductive factors that leads to a higher deposition of bone and bone density as compared to titanium implants. Our results suggest that the use of PTTM implants may induce an earlier osseointegration cascade among osteopenic patients that may counter the relative risk of placing dental implants in this population.
Materials and Methods
Subjects
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill approved this study. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to treatment. Patient selection criteria are presented in Table 1.
Surgical procedures and bone biopsy collection
Radiographs demonstrated that all subjects had partially edentulous mandibular ridge areas in adequate dimensions to accommodate 2 test and 2 control cylinders (3 × 5 mm each) placed on each side of the mandible. Ti and PTTM study cylinders were placed level with the crestal bone and covered with a collagen membrane (BioMend, Zimmer Biomet Dental, Palm Beach Gardens, FL). After placement, a 5.0 mm-diameter tissue punch and a 4.5 mm-diameter trephine drill were used to explant 1 Ti and 1 PTTM test cylinder from each side of the mandible after 2 and 4 weeks of healing.
After explantation, each cylinder was placed separately into a microfuge tube containing RNA stabilization solution (Ambion RNAlater® Tissue Collection, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and temporarily stored at 4 °C overnight. The next morning, the solution was decanted and the samples were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until RNA isolation.
RNA isolation
Bone tissue surrounding each study cylinder was collected and homogenized in liquid nitrogen using sterile mortar and pestle and liquid nitrogen. Total RNA was isolated from the bone biopsy using RNeasy Mini kit (Qiagen, Cat. No. 217084), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Samples were eluted in 30 μL nuclease-free water (Qiagen) and stored at −80 °C. RNA quality and quantity were analyzed using a spectrophotometer (NanoDrop ND-1000, Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, DE) and digital analyzer (Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Waldbronn, Germany).
Quantitative Real-time PCR
For each sample, a volume of 300 ng of RNA was used to generate complementary DNA (cDNA) through reverse transcription reactions using a first-strand cDNA synthesis technique (RT2 First Strands Kit, Qiagen). Genes of interest related to human osteogenesis were examined using a gene array (RT2 Profiler™ PCR Array Human Osteogenesis, PAHS-026Z, Qiagen) and RT-PCR was performed (7500 Sequence Detection system, ABI prism, Applied Biosystems, ThermoFisher Scientific). The human osteogenesis panel included the following functional gene groups: skeletal development, bone mineral metabolism, cell growth and differentiation, extracellular matrix molecules, and transcription factors and regulators. The mRNA expression levels were normalized using multiple housekeeping genes (GAPDH, HPRT1, GUSB), and the fold changes were calculated by means of 2−∆∆CT method on each group.71
Fold change values were calculated by comparing the normalized copy number of individual samples with the mean of the control samples.
Statistical analysis
To compare gene expression in different groups, we used web-based RT2 Profiler PCR Array Data Analysis, (http://pcrdataanalysis.sabiosciences.com/pcr/arrayanalysis.php). This web-based analysis by default employs Student’s t test to examine the differences between groups, We applied the false discover rate test to calculate statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
Ingenuity pathway analysis
The canonical pathways, regulator effects and networks function included in IPA (Ingenuity System Inc, USA) were used to interpret the data in the context of biological processes, pathways and networks. Both up- and downregulated identifiers were defined as value parameters for the analysis. After the analysis, generated networks associated with function appear ordered by a score meaning significance.
Histology
The tissue blocks from the implants were prepared for ground sectioning. The samples were transferred to 0.1M Cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4, for several hours to overnight. Dehydration was started with an ethanol series: 50%, 70%, 95% ethanol in distilled water for 10 min each. They were then transferred into absolute ethanol for two rinses of 20 min each. The samples were infiltrated with a 50:50 mixture of Polybed resin (Polysciences Inc, Warrenton, PA) and absolute ethanol for 6–12 h. They were then embedded with several changes of pure resin into BEEM® capsules and cured overnight at 65 degrees C. The orientation of the samples during embedment was carefully maintained to facilitate cross sectioning of the implants. Cured resin blocks containing the implants were removed from the polyethylene capsules and were sectioned following the long axis of the implants using a diamond band saw fitted in a precision slicing machine (Microslice 2TM; Ultratec, Santa Ana, CA, USA) a thickness of ~50–60 μm. Two central sections were harvested and then hand-polished and thinned using water proof paper. Histological slides were stained with toluidine blue and examined under confocal microscope.
Results
Eight osteopenic female’s subjects aged between 57 and 76 years were included in this study. A total of 32 experimental cylinders (16 Ti control cylinders and 16 PTTM test cylinders) were placed. Each subject received 2 adjacent test cylinders and 2 adjacent control cylinders on opposite’s sides of the same jaw. At each time point, one Ti and one PTTM test cylinder were retrieved from each subject. Transcript analysis was performed on all 32 (16 test and 16 control) samples using PCR array panels. To understand the potential mechanisms involved in the regulatory effect of the PTTM cylinder on osteopenic patients, 84 genes related to osteogenic differentiation were profiled. Growth factors and genes mediating osteogenesis and related cell growth, proliferation, and differentiation processes were included, and categorized as bone matrix proteins, BMP/TGF superfamily genes, soluble ligand receptors, growth factors, integrin receptors, collagen, cartilage-related genes, metalloproteinase, and transcription factors (Table 2). PTTM cylinders were compared to Titanium cylinders in osteopenic patients at 2-week and 4-week time points, for the fold changes values presented in Table 2, titanium samples were used as control in the statistical analysis, therefore genes up or downregulation indicate how PTMM compares to Ti for each gene and period of evaluation, 2 or 4 weeks. Specific gene regulation was observed for most of the studied genes. An increase in gene expression and number of genes from this panel at 4 weeks was observed as follows:
Bone matrix proteins
The levels of ALPL and BGLAP mRNA were upregulated at 4 weeks. BGN mRNA was also evaluated in this study and levels were unchanged up to week 4. Figure 1 indicates the pathway associated with gene function.
BMP/TGF superfamily
At 2-week upregulation for BMP4 and TGFB3 mRNA expression was observed, but not at the later time point. Downregulation of BMP3 and BMP6 was observed at 2 weeks but not at the 4-week time point. The TGFB2 levels were also increased (6-fold increase) at 4 weeks but not at 2 weeks.
Soluble ligand receptors
The expression level of 14 mRNAs encoding receptors associated with different functions during cell differentiation is shown in Table 2. Calcitonin receptor mRNA expression levels decreased at 2 weeks then increased at 4 weeks. CD36 and FGFR2 mRNA presented an increased expression at 2 and 4 weeks. CDH11 and VCAM1 mRNA expression levels were upregulated at 2 weeks but not at 4 weeks, while FLT1 mRNA expression levels were upregulated at 4 weeks but not at 2 weeks. Upregulation of EGFR, VDR, and PHEX were observed at the later timer point.
Growth factors
Compared to the Ti group, the PTTM group exhibited higher expressions of the following growth factors: FGF2 at 2 weeks, and EGF at 4 weeks. VEGFB mRNA expression was 3.5-fold higher than the Ti group at 4 weeks.
Integrin receptors
ITGA1 mRNA levels were upregulated at 2 and 4 weeks, with a 2.8- and 3.3-fold increase, respectively. ITGA2 mRNA levels were upregulated at 4 weeks. At 2 weeks, statistically significant ITGB mRNA levels were upregulated in the PTTM implant group compared to the Ti group in osteopenic patients.
Collagen genes
COL15A1, COL1A1, COL1A2, and COL3A1 mRNA levels were upregulated at 2 weeks but the COL3A1 was statistically significant upregulated on PTTE implant compared to Ti in osteopenic patient. An increased mRNA expression levels for COL2A1 at 4 weeks was also found.
Other genes evaluated in this study were Cathepsin K (CTSK), SERPINH1, and Fibronectin 1 (FN1). FN1 expression levels, which were increased 2.8-fold at week 2, at a statistical significant level (p = 0.02).
Networks with genes in play are shown in Fig. 2 corresponding to week 2 and Fig. 3 corresponding to week 4 in osteopenic patients from tantalum group in comparison to titanium.
Discussion
Currently, titanium is the most commonly used material for dental implants because of its superior biocompatible, biochemical, and biomechanical properties, and documented long-term clinical success.72,73 However, during recent decades continuously increasing numbers of biomedical implants have been introduced for use in the human body, and the interdisciplinary field of biocompatible implant surfaces from the viewpoint of materials science, biochemistry, and cell biology has been explored in search for materials and surfaces with optimum modulus of elasticity, shear strength, and frictional properties. And although systemic diseases, such as diabetes, endocrine pathologies, or controlled metabolic disorders do not seem to be a total or partial contraindication to the placement of dental implants, such factors have prompted continuing search for improved biomaterials that may also promote long-term dental implant stability through more efficient osseointegration.31,74
Osteoporosis, as a metabolic disease which modifies the bone mass and density, is the most frequent bone disorder, which affects sponge bone mainly and is more common in postmenopausal women. It has been considered for a long time that this osteoporosis could complicate the initial stability of dental implants due to potential loss in the bone mass. Although reported short term implant survival rates have reported to average 93.8%, with a trend but no statistical significant association between osteoporosis and implants failures.75
We conducted this investigation involving different implant surfaces in a group of subjects with such bone disorder aiming to identify potential differences regarding time of pro-osteogenic cell signaling pathways activation and initial healing.
We should also point out that the osteopenic individuals in our study were under treatment with oral bisphosphonates, a class of drugs indicated in the prevention and treatment of illnesses associated to bony resorption. Bisphosphonates have shown to be highly effective inhibitors of bone resorption that selectively affect osteoclasts in vivo.76 In vitro study with gingival fibroblasts exposed to bisphosphonate have indicated the upregulation of VEGFA, and BMP2 genes.77
Also we should note that in our analysis the comparison between different implants/surfaces was measured in individuals who received both implants types and all of them were under oral bisphosphonate treatment. However, we recognize that a limitation of our study is not to account for the specific bisphosphonates, used by each study participant.
Our data presented the transcriptional analysis of osteopenic subjects comparing gene expression profiles associated with healing and osseointegration at 2 and 4 weeks for experimental cylinders made of PTTM (test) and Ti (control). Results for the PTTM implant suggest a general trend of upregulation of the genes in the osteogenic pathways and a more discrete expression of genes regulating bone resorption. As indicated in Fig. 1 that highlights genes related to osteoblast differentiation and mineralization, a 10-fold upregulation of the Alkaline phosphatase gene (ALP) was observed for PTTM compared to Ti cylinders in osteopenic patients. Evidence that tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase plays an important role in normal biomineralization has been documented in the literature.78,79,80 ALP is among the first functional genes expressed in the process of calcification. It is therefore likely that at least one of its roles in the mineralization process at an early phase. A clue to the role of ALP in calcification came from studies in subjects displaying hypophosphatasia, whose disease resulted from missense mutations in the gene coding for tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase, which led to decreased or absent ALP activity.81 Another gene implicated in the regulation of early osteogenesis is Bone gamma-carboxyglutamate Protein/Osteocalcin (BGLAP), which is a key component of the early extracellular matrix necessary bone formation.82 Osteocalcin is a bone-specific protein that comprisesabout 15% of the noncollagenous protein component of bone83 is a highly conserved bone-specific protein that is synthesized by osteoblasts and the Osteocalcin (BLGAP) 3.8-fold upregulation at 4 weeks in PTTM-associated bone samples, indicates the relative increased expression of Bglap, which is normally detected in mature osteoblasts and also osteocytes in ossifying centers.84 Osteocalcin detection early in the process of mineralization suggest a fundamental role for osteocalcin in attainment and maintenance of the bone mineral matrix, as well as in bone remodeling.85 It is highly conserved across species and has numerous regulatory elements among them the vitamin D receptor, which positively regulates the transcription by binding to the osteocalcin promoter.86 In our results, Vitamin D receptor was upregulated (2.43 fold) at week 4 in bone samples collected from PTTM test cylinders.
Figures 1 and 2 also illustrate ALP, BGN (biglycan), and BMP4 networks linked to bone maturation. BGN modulates osteoblast differentiation by regulating bone morphogenetic protein-4 (BMP-4), Biglycan signaling promotes osteoblast differentiation and it has been shown that BGN knockout mice have an age-dependent osteoporosis-like phenotype, including a reduced growth rate and lower bone mass due to decreased bone formation.87 It has also been shown in mice that biglycan deficiency caused less BMP-4 binding, which subsequently reduced the sensitivity of osteoblasts to BMP-4 stimulation, ultimately leading to a defect in the differentiation of osteoblasts.88 BMP4 is recognized as one of the most potent inducers of bone formation through its stimulation of osteoblast differentiation.89 Regarding the TGF/BMP superfamily, our results showed 2.3 fold increase in BMP4 expression for the PTTM in comparison to the Ti associated bone samples at 2 weeks. TGFB2 and TGFB3 are other factors involved in osteoblast differentiation and bone formation,90 and were also upregulated in the PTTM-associated bone. Although an increase in TGF/BMP superfamily genes was observed, there were no significant changes in SMAD transcription factor genes. We also found that levels of FLT1 in the PTTM-related samples were increased at 4 weeks. Otomo et al. 81 demonstrated that Flt-1 tyrosine kinase deficiency leads to decreased trabecular bone volume with reduced osteogenic potential by demonstrating that disruption of the FLT1 tyrosine kinase domain gene promoted significant reduction in the mineralizing surface, mineral apposition rate, and bone formation rate in the trabecular bone in animal model.
Table 3 summarizes the functional properties of the differentially expressed target genes, those significantly upregulated genes are also shown in play through the network generated by Ingenuity Pathway Analysis as seen in Fig. 2 for PTTM-related samples. Our data also indicates that PTTM-related bone samples exhibited a statistically significant increase in CHD11 levels at 2 weeks. Previous studies have established that osteoblasts express mostly N-cadherin (cadherin-2, CDH2) and cadherin-11 (CDH11), known to be upregulated during osteoblast differentiation. The expression of this particular cadherin with upregulation during differentiation, suggests a specific function in bone development and maintenance of bone mass.91
The healing process of alveolar bone after implantation necessitates adequate production and interpretation of network of local growth factors. Growth factors that are involved in the commitment of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to osteoblastic lineage, osseoinduction, and vascularization, play critical roles in determining the success of the bone healing, and play a role on osseointegration.92
PTTM-related samples also showed upregulation of genes associated with angiogenesis (FGF2, VEGFB, TNF, EGF, IGF1, and ITGB1) (Fig. 2). The importance of angiogenesis in bone healing and regeneration is well recognized and represents another potential target mechanism for modulating the osseointegration process.93
The effects of extracellular matrix proteins on the growth of bone cells are mediated mainly via integrin receptors. Integrins form a part of the focal adhesion process that is primarily responsible for cell attachment and spreading by physically linking integrins to actin cytoskeleton.94 PTTM-related samples showed an increase and upregulation of mRNA expression of different integrin receptor ITGA1 and ITGA2 and ITGFGB1, suggesting the promotion of early healing and tissue adhesion associated with PTTM.
Most of the collagens were upregulated either at 2 or 4 weeks. COL1A1 and COL3A1 are both localized in bone tissue, and these genes are upregulated in the early stages of osteoblast differentiation.95 These findings suggest that the critical events associated with bone formation during the process of osseointegration are influenced by the surface of the implant, and in particular by the cell–implant interface. Within the limitations of the present study, PTTM exhibited a more robust response towards early bone formation and mineralization, which may potentially enhance early osseointegration.
References
Pjetursson, B. E. et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 23(Suppl 6), 22–38 (2012).
Lindh, T. et al. A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 9, 80–90 (1998).
Ekelund, J. A. et al. Implant treatment in the edentulous mandible: a prospective study on Branemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int. J. Prosthodont. 16, 602–608 (2003).
Das, K. P., Jahangiri, L. & Katz, R. V. The first-choice standard of care for an edentulous mandible: a Delphi method survey of academic prosthodontists in the United States. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 143, 881–889 (2012).
Branemark, P. I. Vital microscopy of bone marrow in rabbit. Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. 11(Supp38), 1–82 (1959).
Butz, F. et al. Harder and stiffer bone osseointegrated to roughened titanium. J. Dent. Res. 85, 560–565 (2006).
Cooper, L. F. Biologic determinants of bone formation for osseointegration: clues for future clinical improvements. J. Prosthet. Dent. 80, 439–449 (1998).
Mavrogenis, A. F. et al. Biology of implant osseointegration. J. Musculoskelet. Neuron. Interact. 9, 61–71 (2009).
Branemark, P. I. et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Suppl. 16, 1–132 (1977).
Thalji, G., Gretzer, C. & Cooper, L. F. Comparative molecular assessment of early osseointegration in implant-adherent cells. Bone 52, 444–453 (2013).
Kim, C. S. et al. Effect of various implant coatings on biological responses in MG63 using cDNA microarray. J. Oral. Rehabil. 33, 368–379 (2006).
Ivanovski, S. et al. Transcriptional profiling of osseointegration in humans. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 22, 373–381 (2011).
Donos, N. et al. Gene expression profile of osseointegration of a hydrophilic compared with a hydrophobic microrough implant surface. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 22, 365–372 (2011).
Ogawa, T. & Nishimura, I. Genes differentially expressed in titanium implant healing. J. Dent. Res. 85, 566–570 (2006).
Thalji, G. & Cooper, L. F. Molecular assessment of osseointegration in vitro: a review of current literature. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 29, e171–e199 (2013).
Thalji, G. & Cooper, L. F. Molecular assessment of osseointegration in vivo: a review of the current literature. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 28, e521–e534 (2012).
Alsaadi, G. et al. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection. J. Clin. Periodontol. 34, 610–617 (2007).
Anner, R. et al. Smoking, diabetes mellitus, periodontitis, and supportive periodontal treatment as factors associated with dental implant survival: a long-term retrospective evaluation of patients followed for up to 10 years. Implant. Dent. 19, 57–64 (2010).
Nevins, M. L. et al. Wound healing around endosseous implants in experimental diabetes. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 13, 620–629 (1998).
Takeshita, F. et al. Uncontrolled diabetes hinders bone formation around titanium implants in rat tibiae. A light and fluorescence microscopy, and image processing study. J. Periodontol. 69, 314–320 (1998).
Holahan, C. M. et al. Effect of osteoporotic status on the survival of titanium dental implants. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 23, 905–910 (2008).
Chen, H. et al. Smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis as risk factors for dental implant failure: a meta-analysis. PLoS. One. 8, e71955 (2013).
Tawil, G. et al. Conventional and advanced implant treatment in the type II diabetic patient: surgical protocol and long-term clinical results. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 23, 744–752 (2008).
Balshi, S. F., Wolfinger, G. J. & Balshi, T. J. An examination of immediately loaded dental implant stability in the diabetic patient using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Quintessence Int. 38, 271–279 (2007).
Javed, F. & Romanos, G. E. Impact of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control on the osseointegration of dental implants: a systematic literature review. J. Periodontol. 80, 1719–1730 (2009).
Ferreira, S. D. et al. Prevalence and risk variables for peri-implant disease in Brazilian subjects. J. Clin. Periodontol. 33, 929–935 (2006).
Morris, H. F., Ochi, S. & Winkler, S. Implant survival in patients with type 2 diabetes: placement to 36 months. Ann. Periodontol. 5, 157–165 (2000).
Gaetti-Jardim, E. C. et al. Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a clinical reality? J. Craniofac. Surg. 22, 1111–1113 (2011).
Deal, C. L. Osteoporosis: prevention, diagnosis, and management. Am. J. Med. 102, 35S–39S (1997).
NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy, March 7-29, 2000: highlights of the conference. South Med J. 94, 569–573 (2001).
Riggs, B. L. & Melton, Lr The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 17, S505–S511 (1995).
Kanis, J. A. et al. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J. Bone Miner. Res. 9, 1137–1141 (1994).
Looker, A. C. et al. Prevalence and trends in low femur bone density among older US adults: NHANES 2005-2006 compared with NHANES III. J. Bone Miner. Res. 25, 64–71 (2010).
Zhang, J., Morgan, S. L. & Saag, K. G. Osteopenia: debates and dilemmas. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 15, 384 (2013).
Raisz, L. G. Pathogenesis of osteoporosis: concepts, conflicts, and prospects. J. Clin. Invest. 115, 3318–3325 (2005).
Fini, M. et al. Osteoporosis and biomaterial osteointegration. Biomed. Pharmacother. 58, 487–93 (2004).
Wactawski-Wende, J. et al. The role of osteopenia in oral bone loss and periodontal disease. J. Periodontol. 67(10 Suppl), 1076–1084 (1996).
Gur, A. et al. The relation between tooth loss and bone mass in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Turkey: a multicenter study. J. Bone Miner. Metab. 21, 43–47 (2003).
Cho, P. et al. Examination of the bone-implant interface in experimentally induced osteoporotic bone. Implant. Dent. 13, 79–87 (2004).
Duarte, P. M. et al. Estrogen deficiency affects bone healing around titanium implants: a histometric study in rats. Implant. Dent. 12, 340–346 (2003).
Giro, G. et al. Influence of estrogen deficiency and its treatment with alendronate and estrogen on bone density around osseointegrated implants: radiographic study in female rats. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. Endod. 105, 162–167 (2008).
Yamazaki, M. et al. Bone reactions to titanium screw implants in ovariectomized animals. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. Endod. 87, 411–418 (1999).
Qi, M. C. et al. Oestrogen replacement therapy promotes bone healing around dental implants in osteoporotic rats. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 33, 279–285 (2004).
Giro, G. et al. Impact of osteoporosis in dental implants: a systematic review. World J. Orthop. 6, 311–315 (2015).
Famili, P. & Zavoral, J. M. Low skeletal bone mineral density does not affect dental implants. J. Oral. Implantol. 41, 550–553 (2015).
Tsolaki, I. N., Madianos, P. N. & Vrotsos, J. A. Outcomes of dental implants in osteoporotic patients. A literature review. J. Prosthodont. 18, 309–323 (2009).
Alghamdi, H. S. & Jansen, J. A. Bone regeneration associated with nontherapeutic and therapeutic surface coatings for dental implants in osteoporosis. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 19, 233–253 (2013).
Raubenheimer, E. J., Noffke, C. E. & Hendrik, H. D. Recent developments in metabolic bone diseases: a gnathic perspective. Head. Neck Pathol. 8, 475–481 (2014).
Schouten, C. et al. A novel implantation model for evaluation of bone healing response to dental implants: the goat iliac crest. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 21, 414–423 (2010).
Alghamdi, H. S. et al. Calcium-phosphate-coated oral implants promote osseointegration in osteoporosis. J. Dent. Res. 92, 982–988 (2013).
Bobyn, J. D. et al. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 81, 907–914 (1999).
Gruen, T. A. et al. Radiographic evaluation of a monoblock acetabular component: a multicenter study with 2- to 5-year results. J. Arthroplast. 20, 369–378 (2005).
Patil, N., Lee, K. & Goodman, S. B. Porous tantalum in hip and knee reconstructive surgery. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B. Appl. Biomater. 89, 242–251 (2009).
Liu, Y. et al. The physicochemical/biological properties of porous tantalum and the potential surface modification techniques to improve its clinical application in dental implantology. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Mater. Biol. Appl. 49, 323–329 (2015).
Peron, C. & Romanos, G. Immediate placement and occlusal loading of single-tooth restorations on partially threaded, titanium-tantalum combined dental implants: 1-year results. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 36, 393–399 (2016).
Schlee, M. et al. Prospective, multicenter evaluation of trabecular metal-enhanced titanium dental implants placed in routine dental practices: 1-year interim report from the development period (2010 to 2011). Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 17, 1141–1153 (2015).
Schlee, M., van der Schoor, W. P. & van der Schoor, A. R. Immediate loading of trabecular metal-enhanced titanium dental implants: interim results from an international proof-of-principle study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 17(Suppl 1), e308–e320 (2015).
Zardiackas, L. D. et al. Structure, metallurgy, and mechanical properties of a porous tantalum foam. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 58, 180–187 (2001).
Köck, W. & Paschen, P. Tantalum—processing, properties and applications. JOM 41, 33–39 (1989).
Cohen, R. A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am. J. Orthop. (Belle Mead NJ) 31, 216–217 (2002).
Bencharit, S. et al. Development and applications of porous tantalum trabecular metal-enhanced titanium dental implants. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 16, 817–826 (2014).
Levine, B. R. et al. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 27, 4671–4681 (2006).
Heiner, A., Brown, T. & Poggie, R. Structural efficacy of a novel porous tantalum implant for osteonecrosis grafting. Trans. Orthop. Res Soc. 26, 480 (2001).
Miyazaki, T. et al. Mechanism of bonelike apatite formation on bioactive tantalum metal in a simulated body fluid. Biomaterials 23, 827–832 (2002).
Bobyn, J. D. et al. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am 86(suppl 2), 123–129 (2004).
Kim, D. G. et al. Bone ingrowth and initial stability of titanium and porous tantalum dental implants: a pilot canine study. Implant. Dent. 22, 399–405 (2013).
Karageorgiou, V. & Kaplan, D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26, 5474–5491 (2005).
Spinato, S. et al. A trabecular metal implant 4 months after placement: clinical-histologic case report. Implant. Dent. 23, 3–7 (2014).
Battula, S. et al. Evaluation of different implant designs in a ligature-induced peri-implantitis model: a canine study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 30, 534–545 (2015).
Lee, J. W. et al. Outcome after placement of tantalum porous engineered dental implants in fresh extraction sockets: a canine study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 30, 134–142 (2015).
Livak, K. J. & Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods 25, 402–408 (2001).
Liu, X., Chu, P. K. & Ding, C. Surface modification of titanium, titanium alloys, and related materials for biomedical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng.: R: Rep. 47, 49–121 (2004).
Treves, C. et al. In vitro biocompatibility evaluation of surface-modified titanium alloys. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 92, 1623–1634 (2010).
Retzepi, M., Lewis, M. P. & Donos, N. Effect of diabetes and metabolic control on de novo bone formation following guided bone regeneration. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 21, 71–79 (2010).
Gomez-de Diego, R. et al. Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: update. Med. Oral. Patol. Oral. Cir. Bucal 19, e483–e489 (2014).
Rogers, M. J. et al. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates. Cancer 88(12 Suppl), 2961–2978 (2000).
Ohlrich, E. J. et al. The bisphosphonate zoledronic acid regulates key angiogenesis-related genes in primary human gingival fibroblasts. Arch. Oral. Biol. 63, 7–14 (2016).
Hessle, L. et al. Tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase and plasma cell membrane glycoprotein-1 are central antagonistic regulators of bone mineralization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 9445–9449 (2002).
Millan, J. L. The role of phosphatases in the initiation of skeletal mineralization. Calcif. Tissue Int. 93, 299–306 (2013).
Millan, J. L. Alkaline Phosphatases:structure, substrate specificity and functional relatedness to other members of a large superfamily of enzymes. Purinergic. Signal. 2, 335–341 (2006).
Whyte, M. P. Hypophosphatasia and the role of alkaline phosphatase in skeletal mineralization. Endocr. Rev. 15, 439–461 (1994).
Long, F. Building strong bones: molecular regulation of the osteoblast lineage. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 13, 27–38 (2012).
Dickson, I. R. & Roughley, P. J. The effects of vitamin D deficiency on proteoglycan and hyaluronate constituents of chick bone. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1181, 15–22 (1993).
Filvaroff, E. et al. Inhibition of TGF-beta receptor signaling in osteoblasts leads to decreased bone remodeling and increased trabecular bone mass. Development 126, 4267–4279 (1999).
Power, M. J. & Fottrell, P. F. Osteocalcin: diagnostic methods and clinical applications. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 28, 287–335 (1991).
Ozono, K. et al. The vitamin D-responsive element in the human osteocalcin gene. Association with a nuclear proto-oncogene enhancer. J. Biol. Chem. 265, 21881–21888 (1990).
Chen, X. D. et al. Age-related osteoporosis in biglycan-deficient mice is related to defects in bone marrow stromal cells. J. Bone Miner. Res. 17, 331–340 (2002).
Chen, X. D. et al. The small leucine-rich proteoglycan biglycan modulates BMP-4-induced osteoblast differentiation. FASEB J. 18, 948–958 (2004).
Chang, S. F. et al. BMP-4 induction of arrest and differentiation of osteoblast-like cells via p21 CIP1 and p27 KIP1 regulation. Mol. Endocrinol. 23, 1827–1838 (2009).
Chen, G., Deng, C. & Li, Y. P. TGF-beta and BMP signaling in osteoblast differentiation and bone formation. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 8, 272–288 (2012).
Mbalaviele, G., Shin, C. S. & Civitelli, R. Cell-cell adhesion and signaling through cadherins: connecting bone cells in their microenvironment. J. Bone Miner. Res. 21, 1821–1827 (2006).
Gandhi, A. et al. The effects of local insulin delivery on diabetic fracture healing. Bone 37, 482–490 (2005).
Kanczler, J. M. & Oreffo, R. O. Osteogenesis and angiogenesis: the potential for engineering bone. Eur. Cell. Mater. 15, 100–114 (2008).
Helfrich, M. H. et al. Beta 1 integrins and osteoclast function: involvement in collagen recognition and bone resorption. Bone 19, 317–328 (1996).
Hong, S. J. et al. Novel scaffolds of collagen with bioactive nanofiller for the osteogenic stimulation of bone marrow stromal cells. J. Biomater. Appl. 24, 733–750 (2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.P.B. and S.O. designed experiments. T.M. and S.B. performed surgeries. S.J.K., K.M.B., and E.K.H. processed samples. E.K.H., F.N., and S.P.B. analyzed the data. E.K.H. and S.P.B. were responsible for writing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Zimmer Biomet Dental (formerly Zimmer Dental Inc.) has no role in the writing or publication of this manuscript. Zimmer Biomet Dental supported experimental research.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hefni, E.K., Bencharit, S., Kim, S.J. et al. Transcriptomic profiling of tantalum metal implant osseointegration in osteopenic patients. BDJ Open 4, 17042 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-018-0004-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-018-0004-6
This article is cited by
-
Bone impaction grafting with trabecular metal augments in large defects in young patients: unravelling a new perspective in surgical technique
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2020)