J Adv Prosthodont.  2017 Apr;9(2):104-109. 10.4047/jap.2017.9.2.104.

Acid etching of glass-infiltrated zirconia and its biological response

• Vu VT
• Oh GJ
• Yun KD
• Lim HP
• Kim JW
• Nguyen TP
• Park SW

• KMID: 2376297
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.2.104

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of acid etching treatment on surface characteristics and biological response of glass-infiltrated zirconia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A hundred zirconia specimens were divided into four groups depending on surface treatments: untreated zirconia (group Z); acid-etched zirconia (group ZE); glass-infiltrated zirconia (group ZG); and glass-infiltrated and acid-etched zirconia (group ZGE). Surface roughness, surface topography, surface morphology, and Vickers hardness of specimens were evaluated. For biological response test, MC3T3-E1 cell attachment and proliferation on surface of the specimens were examined. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test at a significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS
Group ZGE showed the highest surface roughness (Ra = 1.54 µm) compared with other groups (P < .05). Meanwhile, the hardness of group Z was significantly higher than those of other groups (P < .05). Cell attachment and cell proliferation were significantly higher in group ZGE (P < .05).
CONCLUSION
We concluded that effective surface roughness on zirconia could be made by acid etching treatment after glass infiltration. This surface showed significantly enhanced osteoblast cell response.

Keyword

Zirconia; Roughness; Glass infiltration; Acid etching; Biological response

MeSH Terms

Cell Proliferation
Glass
Hardness
Osteoblasts

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 AFM pictures of the surface of specimens. (A) Z, (B) ZE, (C) ZG, (D) ZGE.

• 

  Fig. 2 FE-SEM images (×10000 magnification) of specimen surfaces. (A) Z, (B) ZE, (C) ZG, (D) ZGE.

• 

  Fig. 3 FE-SEM images of Vickers indentation impression in the outer surface of specimens. (A) Z, (B) ZE, (C) ZG, (D) ZGE. The arrows indicate radial cracks emanating from the indent edges.

• 

  Fig. 4 FE-SEM images (×300 magnification) of MC3T3-E1 on specimens at 4 hours (A) and 24 hours (B) after incubation.

• 

  Fig. 5 Evaluation of MC3T3-E1 cell proliferation by XTT assay. Different letters mean significant difference (P < .05).

Reference

1. Kelly JR, Denry I. Stabilized zirconia as a structural ceramic: an overview. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:289–298. PMID: 17624420.

2. Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:83–96. PMID: 21094996.

3. Uo M, Sjogren G, Sundh A, Watari F, Bergman M, Lerner U. Cytotoxicity and bonding property of dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003; 19:487–492. PMID: 12837396.

4. Yamashita D, Machigashira M, Miyamoto M, Takeuchi H, Noguchi K, Izumi Y, Ban S. Effect of surface roughness on initial responses of osteoblast-like cells on two types of zirconia. Dent Mater J. 2009; 28:461–470. PMID: 19721284.

5. Bächle M, Butz F, Hübner U, Bakalinis E, Kohal RJ. Behavior of CAL72 osteoblast-like cells cultured on zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:53–59. PMID: 17224024.

6. Ewais OH, Al AF, Ghoneim MM, Aboushelib MN. Novel zirconia surface treatments for enhanced osseointegration: laboratory characterization. Int J Dent. 2014; 2014:203940. PMID: 25349610.

7. Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Underlying mechanisms at the bone-biomaterial interface. J Cell Biochem. 1994; 56:340–347. PMID: 7876327.

8. Krajewski A, Malavolti R, Piancastelli A. Albumin adhesion on some biological and non-biological glasses and connection with their Z-potentials. Biomaterials. 1996; 17:53–60. PMID: 8962948.

9. Hench LL. The story of Bioglass. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006; 17:967–978. PMID: 17122907.

10. Kristen A, Hausmann A, Weber M, Fisher J, Fisher H. Bioactive and thermally compatible glass coating on zirconia dental implants. J Dent Res. 2015; 94:297–303. PMID: 25421839.

11. Srikanth R, Kosmac T, Bona AD, Yin L, Zhang Y. Effects of cementation surface modifications on fracture resistance of zirconia. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:435–442. PMID: 25687628.

12. Suresh S. Graded materials for resistance to contact deformation and damage. Science. 2001; 292:2447–2451. PMID: 11431558.

13. Iwaya Y, Machigashira M, Kanbara K, Miyamoto M, Noguchi K, Izumi Y, Ban S. Surface properties and biocompatibility of acid-etched titanium. Dent Mater J. 2008; 27:415–421. PMID: 18717170.

14. Thompson JY, Stoner BR, Piascik JR, Smith R. Adhesion/cementation to zirconia and other non-silicate ceramics: where are we now? Dent Mater. 2011; 27:71–82. PMID: 21094526.

15. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:268–274. PMID: 12644802.

16. Canay S, Hersek N, Ertan A. Effect of different acid treatments on a porcelain surface. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28:95–101. PMID: 11298915.

17. Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, Chan DC. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:479–488. PMID: 12806326.

18. Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, Bottino MA. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 96:412–417. PMID: 17174658.

19. Sykaras N, Iacopino AM, Marker VA, Triplett RG, Woody RD. Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:675–690. PMID: 11055135.

20. Bona A, Donassollo TA, Demarco FF, Barrett AA, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Characterization and surface treatment effects on topography of a glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia-reinforced ceramic. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:769–775. PMID: 17112579.

21. Flury S, Peuzfeldt A, Lussi A. Influence of surface roughness on mechanical properties of two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic materials. Oper Dent. 2012; 37:617–624. PMID: 22616923.

22. Keshavarz M, Idris MH, Ahmad N. Mechanical properties of stabilized zirconia nanocrystalline EB-PVD coating evaluated by micro and nanoindentation. J Adv Ceram. 2013; 2:333–340.

23. Jamie JK, Robert OR. Determining the toughness of ceramics from Vickers indentation using the crack-opening displacements: an experimental study. J Am Ceram Soc. 2003; 86:1433–1436.

24. Zhang Y, Ma L. Optimizaion of ceramic strength using elastic gradients. Acta Mater. 2009; 57:2721–2729. PMID: 20161019.

25. Zhang Y, Sun MJ, Zhang DZ. Designing functionally graded materials with superior load bearing properties. Acta Biomater. 2012; 8:1101–1108. PMID: 22178651.

26. Anselme K. Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2000; 21:667–681. PMID: 10711964.

27. Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T, Branemark PI. Osseointegration of titanium implants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986; 57:285–289. PMID: 3788488.

28. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA, Wick DG, Michaels CM. Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992; 7:302–310. PMID: 1289255.

29. Teughels W, Van AN. Effect of material characteristics and/surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17:68–81. PMID: 16968383.

30. Abbasi Z, Bahrololoom ME, Shariat MH, Bagheri R. Bioactive glasses in dentistry: a review. J Dent Biomater. 2015; 2:1–9.

31. Melchers S, Uesbeck T, Winter O, Eckert H, Eder D. Effect of aluminum ion incorporation on the bioactivity and structure in mesoporous bioactive glasses. Chem Mater. 2016; 28:3254–3264.