Genome Wide Assessment of Early Osseointegration in Implant-Adherent Cells
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Genome Wide assessment of Early Osseointegration in Implant-Adherent Cells Ghadeer N. Thalji A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Dentistry (Oral Biology) Chapel Hill 2012 Approved by Lyndon F.Cooper, DDS, PhD Eric T. Everett, PhD Gustavo Mendonça, DDS, MS, PhD Salvador Nares DDS, PhD Clark M. Stanford, DDS, PhD © 2012 Ghadeer N. Thalji ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT GHADEER N. THALJI: Genome wide assessment of early osseointegration in implant-adherent cells (Under the direction of Professor Lyndon F. Cooper) Objectives: To determine the molecular processes involved in osseointegration. Materials and methods: A structured literature review concerning in vitro and in vivo molecular assessment of osseointegration was performed. A rat and a human model were then used to identify the early molecular processes involved in osseointegration associated with a micro roughened and nanosurface superimposed featured implants. In the rat model, 32 titanium implants with surface topographies exhibiting a micro roughened (AT-II) and nanosurface superimposed featured implants (AT-I) were placed in the tibiae of 8 rats and subsequently harvested at 2 and 4 days after placement. Whereas in the human model, four titanium mini-implants with either a moderately roughened surface (TiOblast) or super-imposed nanoscale topography (Osseospeed) were placed in edentulous sites of eleven systemically healthy subjects and subsequently removed after 3 and 7 days. Total RNA was isolated from cells adherent to retrieved implants. A whole genome microarray using the Affymetrix 1.1 ST Array platform was used to describe the gene expression profiles that were differentially regulated by the implant surfaces. Results: The literature review provided evidence that particular topographic cues can be specifically integrated among the many extracellular signals received by the cell in its signal transduction network. In the rat model, functionally relevant categories related to ossification, skeletal system development, osteoblast differentiation, bone development and biomineral tissue development were upregulated and more prominent at AT-I compared to AT-II. In the human model, there were no iii significant differences when comparing the two-implant surfaces at each time point. However, the microarray identified several genes that were differentially regulated at day 7 vs. day 3 for both implant surfaces. Functionally relevant categories related to the extracellular matrix, collagen fibril organization and angiogenesis were upregulated at both surfaces. Abundant upregulation of several differential markers of alternative activated macrophages was also observed. The biological processes involved with the inflammatory/immune response gene expression were concomitantly downregulated. Conclusions: The presence of micro-roughened and nanosurface features modulated in vivo bone response. This work confirms previous evaluations and further implicates modulation of the inflammatory/immune responses as a factor affecting the accrual of bone mass shortly after implant placement. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Lyndon Cooper, for his excellent guidance, caring and encouragement. I feel I was very fortunate to be mentored by him throughout my prosthodontics residency training, as well as my PhD education. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Salvador Nares, Dr. Eric T. Everett, Dr. Clark M. Stanford and Dr. Gustavo Mendonça for their valuable and constructive criticism that have contributed to my completion of my dissertation. I would like to thank Mrs. Lisa Cooper for her kindness and making me feel like one of her family in a foreign country. Her thoughtfulness will long be remembered. I would also like to thank my parents, my sisters; Abeer, Nour, Huda and Hala and my brothers; Bader and Musa for all their love, understanding and support all along. Last, but by no means least, I thank my friends at UNC School of Dentistry for their friendship and encouragement throughout. v TABLE OF CONTENTS I. List of tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………viii II. List of figures………………………………………………………………………………………………..…x III. List of abbreviations and symbols ………………………………………………………………………….viii VI. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………1 V. Chapter 1: Molecular Assessment of Osseointegration In Vitro; A review of current literature………………5 A. Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………...…..5 B. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………...……6 C. Materials and Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..…7 D. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………...…8 E. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………..…16 F. References………………………………………………………………………………………………....39 VI. Chapter 2: Molecular Assessment of Osseointegration In Vivo; A review of current literature………….....61 A. Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………...61 B. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….62 C. Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………………………………64 D. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………….65 vi E. Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………....66 F. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………..73 G. References………………………………………………………………………………………………...82 VII. Chapter 3: Comparative Molecular Assessment of Early Osseointegration in Implant-Adherent Cells. Rat model……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..89 A. Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………...89 B. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….91 C. Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………………………………92 D. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………….95 E. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………98 F. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………101 G. References……………………………………………………………………………………………….116 VIII. Chapter 4: Early molecular assessment of osseointegration in humans………………………………….120 A. Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………….120 B. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………...122 C. Materials and Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..124 D. Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………...126 E. Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………..128 F. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………133 G. References……………………………………………………………………………………………….147 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Surface modification and coatings examined in the in-vitro studies………………………………….17 Table 1.2 Cell culture models used at different implant surfaces………………………………………………..22 Table 1.3 Genes examined in in-vitro culture models with different implant surfaces along with their functional gene ontology annotation………………………………………………………………………………………...24 Table 1.4 Technique used in in-vitro culture models for molecular assessment of osseointegration with different implant surfaces………………………………………………………………………………………………….34 Table 1.5 Genome wide expression profiling in in-vitro culture models for molecular assessment of osseointegration………………………………………………………………………………………………….36 Table 2.1 In vivo models used for molecular assessment of osseointegration…………………………………..76 Table 2.2 Methods used to assess gene expression adjacent to different implant surfaces in in-vivo models…..76 Table 2.3 Molecular assessment of osseointegration in in-vivo models along with Gene Ontology classification……………………………………………………………………………………………………..77 Table 2.4 Wide genome expression profiling studies in vivo……………………………………………………81 Table 3.1 Surface roughness values as determined by optical interferometry.………………………………...102 Table 3.2 Quantitative chemical surface composition …………………………………………………………103 Table 3.3 Number of genes differentially expressed at AT-I, AT-II (Day 4 vs. Day 2)……………………….103 Table 3.4 List of the top 35 differentially regulated genes at AT-I (Day4 vs. Day2)…………………………..104 Table 3.5 List of the top 35 differentially regulated genes at AT-II (day4 vs. day2)…………………………..105 Table 3.6 List of top 25 differentially expressed genes at AT-I (Day 4 vs. day2) with their fold regulation in AT- I, AT-II. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………...106 Table 3.7 Top 25 downregulated genes at AT-I. ………………………………………………………………107 Table 3.8 Top 25 downregulated genes at AT-II. ……………………………………………………………...108 Table 3.9 The validation of the array data was carried out by qRT-PCR of select number of transcripts for equal number of AT-I and AT-II samples ……………………………………………………………………………109 Table 3.10 Top 60 GO terms for differentially regulated genes at AT-I (Day 4 vs Day2) ……………………110 Table 3.11 Top 6o GO terms for the differentially regulated genes at AT-II satisfying the criteria of fold upregulation >2 and p-value <0.05. ……………………………………………………………………………112 Table 3.12 Top 25 GO terms for downregulated genes at AT-I (Day 4 vs Day 2). …………………………...114 Table 3.13 GO terms related to downregulated genes at AT-II. 21 terms satisfied p < 0.05 and fold dowregulation >2……………………………………………………………………………………………….115 Table 4.1 Number of genes differentially expressed (Day 7 vs. Day 3) ……………………………………….135 viii Table 4.2 List of top 35 differentially upregulated genes at OS (Day 7 vs. day3) with their fold regulation and p- value in OS and TiO. …………………………………………………………………………………………..136 Table 4.3 List of top 35 differentially downregulated genes at OS (Day 7 vs. day3) with their fold regulation and p-value in OS and TiO. ……………………………………………………………………………………138 Table 4.4 Top 30 GO terms for differentially upregulated genes at both surfaces (Day 7 vs. Day3)………….140