Cargando…

Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro

PURPOSE: Titanium is commonly used for implants because of its corrosion resistance and osseointegration capability. It is well known that surface topology affects the response of bone tissue towards implants. In vivo studies have shown that in weeks or months, bone tissue bonds more efficiently to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Levin, Michael, Spiro, Robert C, Jain, Himanshu, Falk, Matthias M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9056099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35502265
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S360297
_version_ 1784697557893513216
author Levin, Michael
Spiro, Robert C
Jain, Himanshu
Falk, Matthias M
author_facet Levin, Michael
Spiro, Robert C
Jain, Himanshu
Falk, Matthias M
author_sort Levin, Michael
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Titanium is commonly used for implants because of its corrosion resistance and osseointegration capability. It is well known that surface topology affects the response of bone tissue towards implants. In vivo studies have shown that in weeks or months, bone tissue bonds more efficiently to titanium implants with rough surfaces compared to smooth surfaces. In addition, stimulating early endosseous integration increases the long-term stability of bone-implants and hence their clinical outcome. Here, we evaluated the response of human MG-63 osteoblast-like cells to flat and solid, compared to rough and porous surface topologies in vitro 1–6 days post seeding. We compared the morphology, proliferation, and attachment of cells onto three smooth surfaces: tissue culture (TC) plastic or microscope cover glasses, machined polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), and machined solid titanium, to cells on a highly porous (average R(a) 22.94 μm) plasma-sprayed titanium surface (composite Ti-PEEK spine implants). METHODS: We used immuno-fluorescence (IF) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as well as Live/Dead and WST-1 cell proliferation assays. RESULTS: SEM analyses confirmed the rough topology of the titanium implant surface, compared to the smooth surface of PEEK, solid titanium, TC plastic and cover glasses. In addition, SEM analyses revealed that MG-63 cells seeded onto smooth surfaces (solid titanium, PEEK) adopted a flat, planar morphology, while cells on the rough titanium surface adopted an elongated morphology with numerous filopodial and lamellipodial extensions interacting with the substrate. Finally, IF analyses of focal adhesions (vinculin, focal adhesion kinase), as well as proliferation assays indicate that MG-63 cells adhere less and proliferate at a slower rate on the rough than on a smooth titanium surface. CONCLUSION: These observations suggest that bone-forming osteoblasts adhere less strongly and proliferate slower on rough compared to smooth titanium surfaces, likely promoting cell differentiation, which is in agreement with other porous implant materials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9056099
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90560992022-05-01 Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro Levin, Michael Spiro, Robert C Jain, Himanshu Falk, Matthias M Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research PURPOSE: Titanium is commonly used for implants because of its corrosion resistance and osseointegration capability. It is well known that surface topology affects the response of bone tissue towards implants. In vivo studies have shown that in weeks or months, bone tissue bonds more efficiently to titanium implants with rough surfaces compared to smooth surfaces. In addition, stimulating early endosseous integration increases the long-term stability of bone-implants and hence their clinical outcome. Here, we evaluated the response of human MG-63 osteoblast-like cells to flat and solid, compared to rough and porous surface topologies in vitro 1–6 days post seeding. We compared the morphology, proliferation, and attachment of cells onto three smooth surfaces: tissue culture (TC) plastic or microscope cover glasses, machined polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), and machined solid titanium, to cells on a highly porous (average R(a) 22.94 μm) plasma-sprayed titanium surface (composite Ti-PEEK spine implants). METHODS: We used immuno-fluorescence (IF) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as well as Live/Dead and WST-1 cell proliferation assays. RESULTS: SEM analyses confirmed the rough topology of the titanium implant surface, compared to the smooth surface of PEEK, solid titanium, TC plastic and cover glasses. In addition, SEM analyses revealed that MG-63 cells seeded onto smooth surfaces (solid titanium, PEEK) adopted a flat, planar morphology, while cells on the rough titanium surface adopted an elongated morphology with numerous filopodial and lamellipodial extensions interacting with the substrate. Finally, IF analyses of focal adhesions (vinculin, focal adhesion kinase), as well as proliferation assays indicate that MG-63 cells adhere less and proliferate at a slower rate on the rough than on a smooth titanium surface. CONCLUSION: These observations suggest that bone-forming osteoblasts adhere less strongly and proliferate slower on rough compared to smooth titanium surfaces, likely promoting cell differentiation, which is in agreement with other porous implant materials. Dove 2022-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9056099/ /pubmed/35502265 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S360297 Text en © 2022 Levin et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Levin, Michael
Spiro, Robert C
Jain, Himanshu
Falk, Matthias M
Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
title Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
title_full Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
title_fullStr Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
title_short Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
title_sort effects of titanium implant surface topology on bone cell attachment and proliferation in vitro
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9056099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35502265
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S360297
work_keys_str_mv AT levinmichael effectsoftitaniumimplantsurfacetopologyonbonecellattachmentandproliferationinvitro
AT spirorobertc effectsoftitaniumimplantsurfacetopologyonbonecellattachmentandproliferationinvitro
AT jainhimanshu effectsoftitaniumimplantsurfacetopologyonbonecellattachmentandproliferationinvitro
AT falkmatthiasm effectsoftitaniumimplantsurfacetopologyonbonecellattachmentandproliferationinvitro