Scanning Electron Microscopy of Epithelial Cells Grown on Enamel, Glass and Implant Materials by A . BAUMHAMMERS, D . D . S . , M.S.* H . H . LANGKAMP, M.s.†
and co-workers reported that the highest total number of viable gingival epithelial cells in cell culture were recovered from glass while the number of viable cells recovered from enamel and vitreous carbon were simi lar. Saglie et al. compared the results obtained from a study of gingival epithelial-like cells grown on glass slides with a similar study concerned with the epithelial remnants on extracted teeth. The two types of epithelial cells showed a similar appearance when viewed with the scanning electron microscope. The purpose of the present study was to examine with scanning electron microscopy, gingival epithelial cells grown in cell culture on tooth enamel, glass, Vitallium, titanium, and vitreous carbon. 13, 1 4
15
R . K . M A T T A , M.S.‡ K . KlLBURY, D.M.D.§
METHODS AND MATERIALS
1
IN AN EXTENSIVE literature review article Natiella and co-authors pointed out that the oral epithelium-implant interface is the "Achilles heel" of dental endosseous implants. Research studies using electron microscopy have shown that cells of junctional epithelium are attached to the tooth by an external basal lamina and hemidesmosomes. This type of attachment will occur, even after periodontal surgery. James demonstrated a basement lamina-like structure and hemidesmosomes attaching cells of the junctional epithelium to endosseous Vitallium implants in dogs and Listgarten and Lai demonstrated similar findings using epoxy dental implants in monkeys. Ijuhin et al. found that the cell culturing of human gingiva applied to the surface of glass cover slips resulted in the formation of basal-like cells overlaying a basal lamina-like structure and contained hemidesmosomes. In an investigation using a monkey, Listgarten and Ellegard were able to locate an epithelial attachment to a piece of subgingival calculus kept plaque free by Chlorhexidine applications. However, clinically there appears to be a progressive deepening of the peri-implant sulcus or pocket with the passage of time. Smithloff and Fritz, in a 5 year study of 33 blade implants, concluded that some degree of bone breakdown will occur in the majority of patients. This breakdown is located in the neck area and is most likely due to the lack of attachment at the oral epithe lium-implant interface in the clinical situation. Investigators have used cell culture technics and also scanning electron microscopy to study cell adaptation to teeth and implant materials in cell culture. Stallard 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SGL (Smulow-Glickman) human gingival epithelial cells obtained from normal human attached gingiva were grown in cell culture on four samples each of human enamel, glass,|| Vitallium, titanium,** and vitreous carbon.† † Sandblasted as well as polished or glazed speci mens were used. The size of the samples ranged from 5 to 10 mm in their widest diameter and they were either disc shaped (Vitallium and titanium) or shaped irregu larly (enamel, glass and vitreous carbon). The enamel slabs were obtained from sound bicuspids extracted for orthodontic reasons. The samples were cleaned separately in a solution of Sparkleen‡‡ labora tory detergent in an ultrasonic cleaning bath. The cleaned materials were rinsed separately in three changes of sterile distilled water in an ultrasonic cleaning bath. The washed, rinsed samples were placed in a glass petri dish lined with Whatman #1 filter paper. The petri dish and its contents were sterilized using Anprolene§§ brand of ethylene oxide for a period of 12 hours. The petri dish and contents were allowed to aerate unopened for a period of 12 hours. Human gingival epithelial cells were grown in cell culture on the samples in 60 X 15 mm pyrex glass petri dishes for 5 days at 36°C in a moist atmosphere of 5% C 0 and 95% air. Basal medium Eagle with Earle's balanced salt solu tion was used, supplemented with a standard antibioticantimycotic mixture and 10% heat-inactivated calf se rum. The medium was changed on the third day. The samples with attached cells were harvested from their petri dishes, placed in an ice bath and were proc essed as follows: 2
12
||Belco Glass Company, Vineland, NJ 08360. Howmet Corporation, 3 West 61st St., New York, N Y 10023. ** Implant Research Corporation, P.O. Box 123, Pennsauken, NJ 08110. †† Vitradent Marketing Corporation, 4 Corporate Park Drive, White Plains, N Y 10604.
* Clinical Professor, Department of Periodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa 15261. † Assistant Instructor, Department of Microbiology, School of Den tal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa 15261. ‡ Research Associate, Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and Ear Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213. § Private Pedodontic Practice, 559 Shearer Street, Westmoreland Medical Pavilion, Greensburg, Pa 15601.
Fisher Scientific, 585 Alpha Drive, Pittsburgh, Pa 15238. §§ H. W. Andersen Products Inc., 45 East Main Street, Oyster Bay, NY 11771.
592
Volume 49 Number 11
Epithelial
FIGURE 1. S E M of epithelial
cells growing
on human
tooth
A. Rinsed (3 times) in Eagle's medium without serum. B. Fixed in 3% glutaraldehyde in 0.2 M sodium cacodylate buffer at a pH of 7.2 for 15 minutes. C. Rinsed (3 times) in sodium cacodylate buffer at a pH of 7.2. D. Post-fixed in 1% osmium in 0.1 M phosphate buffer at a p H of 7.2 (containing 0.045 gm of sucrose per ml of fixative) for 15 minutes. E. Rinsed (3 times) in 0.1 M phosphate buffer at a pH of 7.2. After dehydration through a graded ethanol alcohol series, the critical point drying of the samples was carried out in C 0 using a Vermont Bio-chemical apparatus.* The samples were then mounted on aluminum specimen stubs and coated with 300 Å of gold palladium with a Vermont Bio-chemical sputter coater apparatus* and stored in a specimen dessicator* until ready for scanning electron microscopy. Scanning electron microscopy was carried out in an Etec Autoscan† equipped with a Kevex‡ energy dispersive analyzer. Samples were viewed and
enamel
in cell culture
( o r i g i n a l magnification,
Cells
593
X 1500).
analyzed with a 20 kv beam. All samples were examined at X 1500 magnification. RESULTS
The SEM viewing of the cell covered surfaces and the SEM photo micrographs showed that the SGL epithelial cells grew with equal facility on all the test materials. There did not appear to be any significant differences in the S E M appearance of the cells growing on enamel, glass, Vitallium, titanium and vitreous carbon (Figs. 1-5). The cells grew and adapted equally well to smooth and rough (sandblasted) surfaces of the test materials (Figs. 5 and 6).
2
* Available from S E M Consultants, 13971 Ridge Rd., North Huntingdon, Pa 15642. † ETEC Corporation, 3392 Investment Blvd, Hayward, Calif 94545. ‡ Kevex Corporation, 898 Mahler Rd, Burlingame, Calif 94010.
DISCUSSION
The results observed in this i n vitro study are in agreement with those obtained by Stallard and co-workers which show compatibility between gingival epithelial cells and implant materials i n vitro. It must be remembered that these findings cannot be extrapolated to the more complex i n vivo situation resulting from the presence of plaque, saliva, inflammation, crevicularfluidand possible corrosion. The i n vitro investigations by James and Schultz and also Listgarten and Lai show that the junction between the oral epithelium and implant materials may be more significant than previously sus-
594
Baumhammers,
Langkamp,
Malta,
FIGURE 2. S E M of epithelial
J. Periodontol. November, 1978
Kilbury
cells grown
on glass
pected. Both studies showed the presence of basal lam ina-like structures and hemidesmosomes. It must be kept in mind what may appear as promising results in an i n vitro and in short term animals studies regarding epithelium and implant materials may not necessarily apply to long term clinical use in humans. Statistical studies of endosseous implants over 5 years have shown that of the various endosseous implants, only the endodontic implants appear to have a good prognosis. This may be due to the fact that the epithelial attachment to the tooth is still present in case of endo dontic implants. All the other endosseous implants such as bladevents, screws, and pins show progressive bone loss in the neck area. It may be speculated that it takes years for the dele terious effects of metal corrosion to become evident clinically. It has been the clinical experience of the senior author that endosseous blade type of implants can be probed to the level of the alveolar bone surrounding the implant. The Council on Dental Materials and Devices of the American Dental Association has repeatedly stated in its position papers that endosseous implants are in the
coverslip
( o r i g i n a l magnification,
X 1500).
new-technique phase and that the degree of success to be expected from them is not known at this time. It would be of great importance in the research on the epithelial-implant interface to carry out long term animal studies with a minimum of 5 years duration in the presence of adequate plaque control. For example, en dosseous implants could be inserted in beagle dogs who have prophylaxis carried out every 2 days supplemented by daily chemical plaque control using Chlorhexidine.
16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the present study was to examine with scanning electron microscopy gingival epithelial cells grown in cell culture on tooth enamel, glass, Vitallium, titanium and vitreous carbon. SGL (Smulow-Glickman) gingival epithelial cells were grown for 5 days and proc essed using a critical point drying apparatus. Scanning electron microscopy carried out at X 1500 magnification revealed that the gingival epithelial cells grew equally well on all materials on either smooth or rough (sand blasted) surfaces.
FIGURE 3. S E M of epithelial scratch on the surface.
cells
FIGURE 4. SEM
grown
on polished
of epithelial
cells grown
V i t a l l i u m ( o r i g i n a l magnification,
on polished 595
titanium
(original
X 1 5 0 0 ) . Note
magnification,
adaptation
X
1500).
of cell to
slight
FIGURE 5. S E M of e p i t h e l i a l cells
g r o w n on glazed
F I G U R E 6. S E M o f e p i t h e l i a l cells g r o w n on sandblasted points to a c e l l ( o r i g i n a l m a g n i f i c a t i o n , X 1 5 0 0 ) .
vitreous
vitreous
carbon (original magnification, X 1500).
c a r b o n . Cells
a r e more
difficult
to see due to i r r e g u l a r surface.
Arrow
Volume 49 Number 11
Epithelial ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank Mr. Howard Sweitzer of the Audio-Visual Department of the School of Dental Medicine of the University of Pittsburgh for his photographic work and Mrs. Alice Marshall for her secretarial assistance.
1. Natiella, J. R., Armitage, J. E., Greene, G. W., Jr., and Meenaghan, M. A.: Current evaluation of dental implants. J Am
Dent
Assoc
84: 1358,
1972.
597
evidence of a cellular attachment between junctional epithe lium and dental calculus. J Periodont Res 8: 143, 1973. 8. Baumhammers, A.: Unpublished personal clinical obser vation, 1977. 9. Smithloff, M., and Fritz, M. E.: The use of blade implants in a selected population of partially edentulous adults. J Per iodontol
REFERENCES
Cells
47: 19,
1976.
10. Mlinek, A., and Powell, R. N.: Attachment of cells cultured i n vitro to enamel. J Periodontol 41: 320, 1970. 11. Aleo, J. A., De Renzis, F. A., and Färber, P. A.: I n vitro attachment of human gingivalfibroblaststo root surfaces. J
2. Schroeder, H. E., and Listgarten, M. A.: Fine structure of the developing epithelial attachment of human teeth; M o n o graphs in Developmental Biology, vol. 2. Basel, S. Karger, 1971. 3. Listgarten, M.: Ultrastructural features of repair follow ing periodontal surgery, S. S. Stahl (ed), Periodontal Surgery, chapter 5, pp 189-207. Springfield, 111, Charles C. Thomas, 1976. 4. James, R. A., and Schultz, R. L.: Hemidesmosomes and the adhesion of junctional epithelial cells to metal implants.
12. Langkamp, H., Baumhammers, A., Matta, R. K., and Kilbury, K.: Scanning electron microscopy of epithelial cells grown in cell culture. IADR Abstract #351, 1973. 13. Stallard, R. E., El Geneidy, A. K., and Skerman, H. J.: Current research findings on the vitreous carbon tooth root replacement system. Dtsch. Zahnaerztl Z 29: 746, 1974. 14. Stallard, R. E., El Geneidy, A. K., and Skerman, H. J.: Vitreous carbon implants—an aid to alveolar bond mainte
O r a l Implantology
nance. O r a l Implantology
4: 294,
1974.
5. Listgarten, M. A., and Lai, C. H.: Ultrastructure of the intact interface between an endosseous epoxy resin dental implant and the host tissues. J Biol Buccale 3: 13, 1975. 6. Ijuhin, N., Rose, G. G., and Mahan, C. J.: The subcellular organization of human gingival epithelium cultivated in circumfusion systems. A r c h Oral
Biol 24: 571, 1976.
7. Listgarten, M. A., and Ellegard, B.: Electron microscopic
Periodontol
46: 639,
1975.
6: 286, 1976.
15. Saglie, R., Johansen, J. R., and Tollefsen, T.: Scanning electron microscopic study of human gingival epithelial cells on the surface of teeth and glass slides. J Periodont Res 10: 191, 1975. 16. Cranin, A. N., Dennison, T. A., and Schnitman: The present status of endosteal oral implants. J Biomed Mater Res (symposium) 5: 385, 1974.
Announcements T E M P L E UNIVERSITY SCHOOL O F DENTISTRY
Temple University School of Dentistry announces the following continuing education courses: TITLE: Improvizational Perio for the General Practitioner* DATE: January 10, 1979 FACULTY: ALAN MELTZER, D.M.D., M.Sc.D., Clinical Assistant Pro fessor, Temple University By the end of this course, the participants will be able to: (1) Outline the objectives of perio therapy 1979, (2) Diagnose those cases and patients which he will be able to fully treat via improvizational techniques, and (3) Perform these improvizational techniques and fully comprehend the rationale and instrumentation. * Prerequisite for Ms. Sherri Dunbar's Course—Feb. 7, 1979. TITLE: New Approaches to Perio Therapy DATE: February 14, 1979 FACULTY: ALAN MELTZER, D.M.D., M.Sc.D., Clinical Assistant Pro fessor, Temple University By the time the participant completes this course he or she should know the following: (1) The goals of periodontal therapy, (2) The role and objectives of presurgical periodontics, and (3) The role and objec tives of surgical periodontics. TITLE: Periodontal-Restorative Treatment Planning Seminar DATE: February 28, 1979 FACULTY: Faculty, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Temple Uni versity ERNEST MINGLEDORFF, D.D.S., Professor and Chairman
ANTHONY RINALDI, D.D.S., Clinical Associate Professor JOHN LORENZO, D.D.S., Clinical Assistant Professor Faculty, Department of Periodontics, Temple University DAVID L^TWACK, D.D.S., M.S., Professor and Chairman CAROLE HILDEBRAND, D.D.S., M.Ed., Associate Professor ROBERT SCHOOR, D.D.S., Clinical Professor BRIAN WALL, D.D.S., Assistant Professor A participation course in periodontal—restorative treatment plan ning of the complex care. Clinical cases will be discussed in seminar format, utilizing patient history, radiographs, kodachromes, and diag nostic casts. A portion of the day will be reserved to review participants' cases. TITLE: Participation Course in Basic Periodontal Therapy DATES: March 15, 21, 28, April 4, 11, 18, 25, 1979 FACULTY: Faculty, Department of Periodontics, Temple University DAVID LITWACK, D.D.S., Professor & Chairman IRVING ABRAMS, D.D.S., Associate Professor and Staff This participation course in periodontal therapy is an expanded version of the course presented so successfully in past years. Our policy always has been to keep this course alive and stimulating by varying its content slightly each year. As always, we've added fresh, updated material—new lectures, new clinicians and new ideas, in order to acquaint everyone with the latest dynamic changes in periodontics. For further information contact: Mrs. Margaret Schmidt, Program Coordinator, Continuing Education Department, Temple University School of Dentistry, 3223 N . Broad Street, Phila., PA 19140
and co-workers reported that the highest total number of viable gingival epithelial cells in cell culture were recovered from glass while the number of viable cells recovered from enamel and vitreous carbon were simi lar. Saglie et al. compared the results obtained from a study of gingival epithelial-like cells grown on glass slides with a similar study concerned with the epithelial remnants on extracted teeth. The two types of epithelial cells showed a similar appearance when viewed with the scanning electron microscope. The purpose of the present study was to examine with scanning electron microscopy, gingival epithelial cells grown in cell culture on tooth enamel, glass, Vitallium, titanium, and vitreous carbon. 13, 1 4
15
R . K . M A T T A , M.S.‡ K . KlLBURY, D.M.D.§
METHODS AND MATERIALS
1
IN AN EXTENSIVE literature review article Natiella and co-authors pointed out that the oral epithelium-implant interface is the "Achilles heel" of dental endosseous implants. Research studies using electron microscopy have shown that cells of junctional epithelium are attached to the tooth by an external basal lamina and hemidesmosomes. This type of attachment will occur, even after periodontal surgery. James demonstrated a basement lamina-like structure and hemidesmosomes attaching cells of the junctional epithelium to endosseous Vitallium implants in dogs and Listgarten and Lai demonstrated similar findings using epoxy dental implants in monkeys. Ijuhin et al. found that the cell culturing of human gingiva applied to the surface of glass cover slips resulted in the formation of basal-like cells overlaying a basal lamina-like structure and contained hemidesmosomes. In an investigation using a monkey, Listgarten and Ellegard were able to locate an epithelial attachment to a piece of subgingival calculus kept plaque free by Chlorhexidine applications. However, clinically there appears to be a progressive deepening of the peri-implant sulcus or pocket with the passage of time. Smithloff and Fritz, in a 5 year study of 33 blade implants, concluded that some degree of bone breakdown will occur in the majority of patients. This breakdown is located in the neck area and is most likely due to the lack of attachment at the oral epithe lium-implant interface in the clinical situation. Investigators have used cell culture technics and also scanning electron microscopy to study cell adaptation to teeth and implant materials in cell culture. Stallard 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SGL (Smulow-Glickman) human gingival epithelial cells obtained from normal human attached gingiva were grown in cell culture on four samples each of human enamel, glass,|| Vitallium, titanium,** and vitreous carbon.† † Sandblasted as well as polished or glazed speci mens were used. The size of the samples ranged from 5 to 10 mm in their widest diameter and they were either disc shaped (Vitallium and titanium) or shaped irregu larly (enamel, glass and vitreous carbon). The enamel slabs were obtained from sound bicuspids extracted for orthodontic reasons. The samples were cleaned separately in a solution of Sparkleen‡‡ labora tory detergent in an ultrasonic cleaning bath. The cleaned materials were rinsed separately in three changes of sterile distilled water in an ultrasonic cleaning bath. The washed, rinsed samples were placed in a glass petri dish lined with Whatman #1 filter paper. The petri dish and its contents were sterilized using Anprolene§§ brand of ethylene oxide for a period of 12 hours. The petri dish and contents were allowed to aerate unopened for a period of 12 hours. Human gingival epithelial cells were grown in cell culture on the samples in 60 X 15 mm pyrex glass petri dishes for 5 days at 36°C in a moist atmosphere of 5% C 0 and 95% air. Basal medium Eagle with Earle's balanced salt solu tion was used, supplemented with a standard antibioticantimycotic mixture and 10% heat-inactivated calf se rum. The medium was changed on the third day. The samples with attached cells were harvested from their petri dishes, placed in an ice bath and were proc essed as follows: 2
12
||Belco Glass Company, Vineland, NJ 08360. Howmet Corporation, 3 West 61st St., New York, N Y 10023. ** Implant Research Corporation, P.O. Box 123, Pennsauken, NJ 08110. †† Vitradent Marketing Corporation, 4 Corporate Park Drive, White Plains, N Y 10604.
* Clinical Professor, Department of Periodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa 15261. † Assistant Instructor, Department of Microbiology, School of Den tal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa 15261. ‡ Research Associate, Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and Ear Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213. § Private Pedodontic Practice, 559 Shearer Street, Westmoreland Medical Pavilion, Greensburg, Pa 15601.
Fisher Scientific, 585 Alpha Drive, Pittsburgh, Pa 15238. §§ H. W. Andersen Products Inc., 45 East Main Street, Oyster Bay, NY 11771.
592
Volume 49 Number 11
Epithelial
FIGURE 1. S E M of epithelial
cells growing
on human
tooth
A. Rinsed (3 times) in Eagle's medium without serum. B. Fixed in 3% glutaraldehyde in 0.2 M sodium cacodylate buffer at a pH of 7.2 for 15 minutes. C. Rinsed (3 times) in sodium cacodylate buffer at a pH of 7.2. D. Post-fixed in 1% osmium in 0.1 M phosphate buffer at a p H of 7.2 (containing 0.045 gm of sucrose per ml of fixative) for 15 minutes. E. Rinsed (3 times) in 0.1 M phosphate buffer at a pH of 7.2. After dehydration through a graded ethanol alcohol series, the critical point drying of the samples was carried out in C 0 using a Vermont Bio-chemical apparatus.* The samples were then mounted on aluminum specimen stubs and coated with 300 Å of gold palladium with a Vermont Bio-chemical sputter coater apparatus* and stored in a specimen dessicator* until ready for scanning electron microscopy. Scanning electron microscopy was carried out in an Etec Autoscan† equipped with a Kevex‡ energy dispersive analyzer. Samples were viewed and
enamel
in cell culture
( o r i g i n a l magnification,
Cells
593
X 1500).
analyzed with a 20 kv beam. All samples were examined at X 1500 magnification. RESULTS
The SEM viewing of the cell covered surfaces and the SEM photo micrographs showed that the SGL epithelial cells grew with equal facility on all the test materials. There did not appear to be any significant differences in the S E M appearance of the cells growing on enamel, glass, Vitallium, titanium and vitreous carbon (Figs. 1-5). The cells grew and adapted equally well to smooth and rough (sandblasted) surfaces of the test materials (Figs. 5 and 6).
2
* Available from S E M Consultants, 13971 Ridge Rd., North Huntingdon, Pa 15642. † ETEC Corporation, 3392 Investment Blvd, Hayward, Calif 94545. ‡ Kevex Corporation, 898 Mahler Rd, Burlingame, Calif 94010.
DISCUSSION
The results observed in this i n vitro study are in agreement with those obtained by Stallard and co-workers which show compatibility between gingival epithelial cells and implant materials i n vitro. It must be remembered that these findings cannot be extrapolated to the more complex i n vivo situation resulting from the presence of plaque, saliva, inflammation, crevicularfluidand possible corrosion. The i n vitro investigations by James and Schultz and also Listgarten and Lai show that the junction between the oral epithelium and implant materials may be more significant than previously sus-
594
Baumhammers,
Langkamp,
Malta,
FIGURE 2. S E M of epithelial
J. Periodontol. November, 1978
Kilbury
cells grown
on glass
pected. Both studies showed the presence of basal lam ina-like structures and hemidesmosomes. It must be kept in mind what may appear as promising results in an i n vitro and in short term animals studies regarding epithelium and implant materials may not necessarily apply to long term clinical use in humans. Statistical studies of endosseous implants over 5 years have shown that of the various endosseous implants, only the endodontic implants appear to have a good prognosis. This may be due to the fact that the epithelial attachment to the tooth is still present in case of endo dontic implants. All the other endosseous implants such as bladevents, screws, and pins show progressive bone loss in the neck area. It may be speculated that it takes years for the dele terious effects of metal corrosion to become evident clinically. It has been the clinical experience of the senior author that endosseous blade type of implants can be probed to the level of the alveolar bone surrounding the implant. The Council on Dental Materials and Devices of the American Dental Association has repeatedly stated in its position papers that endosseous implants are in the
coverslip
( o r i g i n a l magnification,
X 1500).
new-technique phase and that the degree of success to be expected from them is not known at this time. It would be of great importance in the research on the epithelial-implant interface to carry out long term animal studies with a minimum of 5 years duration in the presence of adequate plaque control. For example, en dosseous implants could be inserted in beagle dogs who have prophylaxis carried out every 2 days supplemented by daily chemical plaque control using Chlorhexidine.
16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the present study was to examine with scanning electron microscopy gingival epithelial cells grown in cell culture on tooth enamel, glass, Vitallium, titanium and vitreous carbon. SGL (Smulow-Glickman) gingival epithelial cells were grown for 5 days and proc essed using a critical point drying apparatus. Scanning electron microscopy carried out at X 1500 magnification revealed that the gingival epithelial cells grew equally well on all materials on either smooth or rough (sand blasted) surfaces.
FIGURE 3. S E M of epithelial scratch on the surface.
cells
FIGURE 4. SEM
grown
on polished
of epithelial
cells grown
V i t a l l i u m ( o r i g i n a l magnification,
on polished 595
titanium
(original
X 1 5 0 0 ) . Note
magnification,
adaptation
X
1500).
of cell to
slight
FIGURE 5. S E M of e p i t h e l i a l cells
g r o w n on glazed
F I G U R E 6. S E M o f e p i t h e l i a l cells g r o w n on sandblasted points to a c e l l ( o r i g i n a l m a g n i f i c a t i o n , X 1 5 0 0 ) .
vitreous
vitreous
carbon (original magnification, X 1500).
c a r b o n . Cells
a r e more
difficult
to see due to i r r e g u l a r surface.
Arrow
Volume 49 Number 11
Epithelial ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank Mr. Howard Sweitzer of the Audio-Visual Department of the School of Dental Medicine of the University of Pittsburgh for his photographic work and Mrs. Alice Marshall for her secretarial assistance.
1. Natiella, J. R., Armitage, J. E., Greene, G. W., Jr., and Meenaghan, M. A.: Current evaluation of dental implants. J Am
Dent
Assoc
84: 1358,
1972.
597
evidence of a cellular attachment between junctional epithe lium and dental calculus. J Periodont Res 8: 143, 1973. 8. Baumhammers, A.: Unpublished personal clinical obser vation, 1977. 9. Smithloff, M., and Fritz, M. E.: The use of blade implants in a selected population of partially edentulous adults. J Per iodontol
REFERENCES
Cells
47: 19,
1976.
10. Mlinek, A., and Powell, R. N.: Attachment of cells cultured i n vitro to enamel. J Periodontol 41: 320, 1970. 11. Aleo, J. A., De Renzis, F. A., and Färber, P. A.: I n vitro attachment of human gingivalfibroblaststo root surfaces. J
2. Schroeder, H. E., and Listgarten, M. A.: Fine structure of the developing epithelial attachment of human teeth; M o n o graphs in Developmental Biology, vol. 2. Basel, S. Karger, 1971. 3. Listgarten, M.: Ultrastructural features of repair follow ing periodontal surgery, S. S. Stahl (ed), Periodontal Surgery, chapter 5, pp 189-207. Springfield, 111, Charles C. Thomas, 1976. 4. James, R. A., and Schultz, R. L.: Hemidesmosomes and the adhesion of junctional epithelial cells to metal implants.
12. Langkamp, H., Baumhammers, A., Matta, R. K., and Kilbury, K.: Scanning electron microscopy of epithelial cells grown in cell culture. IADR Abstract #351, 1973. 13. Stallard, R. E., El Geneidy, A. K., and Skerman, H. J.: Current research findings on the vitreous carbon tooth root replacement system. Dtsch. Zahnaerztl Z 29: 746, 1974. 14. Stallard, R. E., El Geneidy, A. K., and Skerman, H. J.: Vitreous carbon implants—an aid to alveolar bond mainte
O r a l Implantology
nance. O r a l Implantology
4: 294,
1974.
5. Listgarten, M. A., and Lai, C. H.: Ultrastructure of the intact interface between an endosseous epoxy resin dental implant and the host tissues. J Biol Buccale 3: 13, 1975. 6. Ijuhin, N., Rose, G. G., and Mahan, C. J.: The subcellular organization of human gingival epithelium cultivated in circumfusion systems. A r c h Oral
Biol 24: 571, 1976.
7. Listgarten, M. A., and Ellegard, B.: Electron microscopic
Periodontol
46: 639,
1975.
6: 286, 1976.
15. Saglie, R., Johansen, J. R., and Tollefsen, T.: Scanning electron microscopic study of human gingival epithelial cells on the surface of teeth and glass slides. J Periodont Res 10: 191, 1975. 16. Cranin, A. N., Dennison, T. A., and Schnitman: The present status of endosteal oral implants. J Biomed Mater Res (symposium) 5: 385, 1974.
Announcements T E M P L E UNIVERSITY SCHOOL O F DENTISTRY
Temple University School of Dentistry announces the following continuing education courses: TITLE: Improvizational Perio for the General Practitioner* DATE: January 10, 1979 FACULTY: ALAN MELTZER, D.M.D., M.Sc.D., Clinical Assistant Pro fessor, Temple University By the end of this course, the participants will be able to: (1) Outline the objectives of perio therapy 1979, (2) Diagnose those cases and patients which he will be able to fully treat via improvizational techniques, and (3) Perform these improvizational techniques and fully comprehend the rationale and instrumentation. * Prerequisite for Ms. Sherri Dunbar's Course—Feb. 7, 1979. TITLE: New Approaches to Perio Therapy DATE: February 14, 1979 FACULTY: ALAN MELTZER, D.M.D., M.Sc.D., Clinical Assistant Pro fessor, Temple University By the time the participant completes this course he or she should know the following: (1) The goals of periodontal therapy, (2) The role and objectives of presurgical periodontics, and (3) The role and objec tives of surgical periodontics. TITLE: Periodontal-Restorative Treatment Planning Seminar DATE: February 28, 1979 FACULTY: Faculty, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Temple Uni versity ERNEST MINGLEDORFF, D.D.S., Professor and Chairman
ANTHONY RINALDI, D.D.S., Clinical Associate Professor JOHN LORENZO, D.D.S., Clinical Assistant Professor Faculty, Department of Periodontics, Temple University DAVID L^TWACK, D.D.S., M.S., Professor and Chairman CAROLE HILDEBRAND, D.D.S., M.Ed., Associate Professor ROBERT SCHOOR, D.D.S., Clinical Professor BRIAN WALL, D.D.S., Assistant Professor A participation course in periodontal—restorative treatment plan ning of the complex care. Clinical cases will be discussed in seminar format, utilizing patient history, radiographs, kodachromes, and diag nostic casts. A portion of the day will be reserved to review participants' cases. TITLE: Participation Course in Basic Periodontal Therapy DATES: March 15, 21, 28, April 4, 11, 18, 25, 1979 FACULTY: Faculty, Department of Periodontics, Temple University DAVID LITWACK, D.D.S., Professor & Chairman IRVING ABRAMS, D.D.S., Associate Professor and Staff This participation course in periodontal therapy is an expanded version of the course presented so successfully in past years. Our policy always has been to keep this course alive and stimulating by varying its content slightly each year. As always, we've added fresh, updated material—new lectures, new clinicians and new ideas, in order to acquaint everyone with the latest dynamic changes in periodontics. For further information contact: Mrs. Margaret Schmidt, Program Coordinator, Continuing Education Department, Temple University School of Dentistry, 3223 N . Broad Street, Phila., PA 19140
