Disparity in the Influence of Implant Provisional Materials on Human Gingival Fibroblasts with Different Phases of Cell Settlement: An In Vitro Study

The development of healthy peri-implant soft tissues is critical to achieving the esthetic and biological success of implant restorations throughout all stages of healing and tissue maturation, starting with provisionalization. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of eight different implant provisional materials on human gingival fibroblasts at various stages of cell settlement by examining initial cell attachment, growth, and function. Eight different specimens—bis-acrylic 1 and 2, flowable and bulk–fill composites, self-curing acrylic 1 and 2, milled acrylic, and titanium (Ti) alloy as a control—were fabricated in rectangular plates (n = 3). The condition of human gingival fibroblasts was divided into two groups: those in direct contact with test materials (contact experiment) and those in close proximity to test materials (proximity experiment). The proximity experiment was further divided into three phases: pre-settlement, early settlement, and late settlement. A cell culture insert containing each test plate was placed into a well where the cells were pre-cultured. The number of attached cells, cell proliferation, resistance to detachment, and collagen production were evaluated. In the contact experiment, bis-acrylics and composites showed detrimental effects on cells. The number of cells attached to milled acrylic and self-curing acrylic was relatively high, being approximately 70% and 20–30%, respectively, of that on Ti alloy. There was a significant difference between self-curing acrylic 1 and 2, even with the same curing modality. The cell retention ability also varied considerably among the materials. Although the detrimental effects were mitigated in the proximity experiment compared to the contact experiment, adverse effects on cell growth and collagen production remained significant during all phases of cell settlement for bis-acrylics and flowable composite. Specifically, the early settlement phase was not sufficient to significantly mitigate the material cytotoxicity. The flowable composite was consistently more cytotoxic than the bulk–fill composite. The harmful effects of the provisional materials on gingival fibroblasts vary considerably depending on the curing modality and compositions. Pre-settlement of cells mitigated the harmful effects, implying the susceptibility to material toxicity varies depending on the progress of wound healing and tissue condition. However, cell pre-settlement was not sufficient to fully restore the fibroblastic function to the normal level. Particularly, the adverse effects of bis-acrylics and flowable composite remained significant. Milled and self-curing acrylic exhibited excellent and acceptable biocompatibility, respectively, compared to other materials.