[KSCI] Korea Science Citation Index Service

A STUDY ON OSTEOBLAST-LIKE CELL RESPONSES TO SURFACE-MODIFIED TITANIUM

Hong Min-Ah (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
Kim Yung-Soo (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
Kim Chang-Whe (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
Jang Kyung-Su (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
Lee Jae-Il (Department of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)

Publication Information

The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.41, no.3, 2003 , pp. 300-318 More about this Journal

Abstract

Statement of problem: The success of implants depends on intimate and direct contact of implant material on bone tissue and on functional relationship with soft tissue contact. Creation and maintenance of osseointegration depend on the understanding of the tissue's healing, repairing, and remodeling capacity and these capacities rely on cellular behavior. Altering the surface properties can modify cellular responses such as cell adhesion, cell motility, bone deposition, Therefore, various implant surface treatment methods are being developed for the improved bone cell responses. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responses of osteoblast-like cells to surface-modified titanium. Materials and Methods: The experiment was composed of four groups. Group 1 represented the electropolished surface. Group 2 surfaces were machined surface. Group 3 and Group 4 were anodized surfaces. Group 3 had low roughness and Group 4 had high roughness. Physicochemical properties and microstructures of the discs were examined and the responses of osteoblast-like cells to the discs were investigated. The microtopography was observed by SEM. The roughness was measured by three-dimension roughness measuring system. The microstructure was analyzed by XRD, AES. To evaluate cell responses to modified titanium surfaces, osteoblasts isolated from calvaria of neonatal rat were cultured. Cell count, morphology, total protein measurement and alkaline phosphatase activities of the cultures were examined. Results and Conclusion: The results were as follows 1. The four groups showed specific microtopography respectively. Anodized group showed grain structure with micropores. 2. Surface roughness values were, from the lowest to the highest, electropolished group, machined group, low roughness anodized group, and high roughness anodized group. 3. Highly roughened anodized group was found to have increased surface oxide thickness and surface crystallinity. 4. The morphology of cells, flattened or spherical, were different from each other. In the electropolished group and machined group, the cells were almost flattened. In two anodized groups, some cells were spherical and other cells were flattened. And the 14 day culture cells of all of the groups were nearly flattened due to confluency. 5. The number of attached cells was highest in low roughness anodized group. And the machined group had significantly lower cell count than any other groups(P<.05). 6. Total protein contents showed no difference among groups. 7. The level of alkaline phosphatase activities was higher in the anodized groups than electropolished and machined groups(P<.05).

Keywords

Implant; Titanium; Surface modification; Cellular response; Surface analysis;

Citations & Related Records

Reference

1	Ong JL, Carnes DL, Cardens HL, Cavin R. Surface roughness of titanium on bone morphogenetic protein-Z treated osteoblast cells in vitro. Implant Dent 1997;6:19-24 DOI PUBMED ScienceOn
2	Albrecktsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Kasemo B, Larsson K, Lundstrom I, McQueen D, Skalak R. The interface zone of inorganic implants in vivo: titanium implants in bone. Ann Biomed Eng 1983;11:1-27 DOI
3	Keller JC, Stanford CM, Wightman JP, Draughn RA, Zaharias R. Characterizations of titanium implant surfaces. III J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:939-946 DOI ScienceOn
4	Puleo DA, Holleran LA, Doremus RH, Bizios R. Osteoblast responses to orthopedic implant materials in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:711-23 DOI
5	Thomas K, Cook S. An evaluation of variables influencing implant fixation by direct bone apposition J Biomed Mater Res 1985;19:875-901
6	Lumbikanonda N, Sammons R. Bone cell attachment to dental implants of different surface characteristics. Int J Oral Maxillifac Implants 2001;16:627-36
7	Michaels CM, Keller JC. Stanford CM, Solursh M. In vitro cell atachment of osteoblast-like cells to titanium. J Dent Res 1989;68:276-81
8	Branernark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lundstrom J, Hallen O, Ohman A. Osseoietegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from Ifl-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977; 11:1-132 DOI
9	Lauer G, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Otten JE, Hubner U, Schmelzeisen R, Schilli W. The titanium surface texture effects adherence and growth of human gingival keratinocytes and human maxillar osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Biomaterials 2001;22:2799-2809 DOI ScienceOn
10	Oshida Y, Sachdeva R, Miyazaki S. Changes in contact angles as a function of time in some pre-oxidized biomateials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1992;3:306-12 DOI
11	Yang Y, Tian J, Deng L, Ong JL. Morphologic behavior of osteoblast-like cells on surface-modified titanium in vitro. Biomaterials 2002:23;1383-89
12	Anselme K. Oseoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials 2000;21:667-68 DOI ScienceOn
13	Ellingen JE. Surface configurations of dental implants. Periodontology 2000 1998;17:36-46 DOI ScienceOn
14	Jones SJ, Boyde A. Colonization of various natural substrates by osteoblasts in vitro. SEM 1979;II:529-538
15	Wyatt CCL, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 1998;13:204-11
16	Lowry O, Rosebrough N, Farr A, Randall R. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J Bioloc Chem 1951;193:265-75
17	Larsson C, Thomsen P, Aronsson BO, Rodahl M, Lausmaa J, Kasemo B, Ericson LE. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: studies on the early tissue response to machined and electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses. Biomaterials 1996;17:605-16 DOI ScienceOn
18	Kasemo B. Lausmaa J. Aspect of surface physics on titanium implants. Swed Dent J 1985; suppl 28:19-36
19	Owen TA, Aronow M, Shalhoub V, Barone LM, Wilming L, Tassinari MS,Kennedy ME, Pockwinse S, Lian JB, Stein GS. Progressive development of the rat osteoblast phenotype in vitro: Reciprocal relationships in expression of genes associated with_ osteoblast proliferation and differentiation using formation of the bone extracellular matrix. J Cell Physiol 1990;143:420-430 DOI
20	Oshida Y, Sachdeva R, Miyazaki S, Daly J. Effects of shotpeening on surface contact angles of biomateials. J Mater Sci 1993;4:443-47
21	Ishizawa H, Oginno M. Formation and chatacterization of anodic titanium oxide films containing Ca and P. J Biomed Mat Res 1995;29:65-72 DOI ScienceOn
22	Howlett CR, Evans MDM, Walsh WR, Johnson G, Steele JG. Mechanism of initial attachment of cells derived from human bone to commonly used prosthetic materials during cell culture. Biomaterials 1994;15:213-22 DOI ScienceOn
23	Stanford CM, Keller JC, Solursh M. Bone cell ex pression on titanium surfaces is altered by sterilization treatments. J Dent Res 1994;73:1061-71 DOI PUBMED
24	Lampin M, Warocquier-Clerout R, Legris C, Degrange M, Sigot-Luizard MF. Corelation between substratum roughness and wettability, cell adhesion, and cell migration. J Biomed Mater Res 1997;36:99-108 DOI ScienceOn
25	Baier RE, Meyer AE, Akers CK, Natiella JR, Meenaghan M, Carter JM. Degradative effects of conventional steam sterilization on biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials 1982;3:241-5 DOI ScienceOn
26	Sullivan DY, Sherwood RL, Mai TN. Preliminary results of a multicenter study evaluating a chemically enhanced surface for machined commercially pure titanium implants. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:379-86 DOI ScienceOn
27	SuI Y-T, Johansson CB, Petronis S, Krozer A, Jeong Y, Wennerrberg A, Albrektsson T. Characteristics of the surface oxides on turned and electrochemically oxidized pure titanium implants up to dielectric breakdown: the oxide thickness, micropore configurations, surface roughness, crystal structure and chemical composition. Biomaterials 2002;23:491-501 DOI ScienceOn
28	Nugiel DJ, Wood DJ, Paul Sung KL.Quantification of adhesiveness of osteoblasts to titnium surfaces in vitro by the micropipette aspiration technique. Tissue Eng 1996;2:127-139 DOI PUBMED
29	Larsson C. Thomsen P, Lausmaa J, Rodahl M, Kasemo B, Ericsson LE. Bone reponse to surface modified titanium implants: studies on electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses and morphology. Biomaterials 1994;15:1062-1074 DOI ScienceOn
30	Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Linden U, Bergstrom C, Steenberghe DV. Survival of the Br ${\aa}$ nemark implant of partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 1999;14:639-45 PUBMED
31	Williams DF. Biocompatibility:performance in the surgical reconstruction of man. Interdisplinary Sci Rev 1990;15:20-33 DOI
32	MartinJy, Schwartz Z, Hummert TW, Schraub DM, Simpson J, Lankford Jr.J, Dean DD, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. Effect of titanium surface roughness on human osteoblsat-like cell(MG63) J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:389-401
33	Martin JY, Dean DD, Cochran DL, Simpson J, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast like cells (MG63) cultured on previously used titanium surfaces. Clin Oral Impl Res 1996;7:27-37 DOI ScienceOn
34	Buser D, Schenk R, Steinemann S, Riorellini J, Fox C, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphomeric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25;889-902
35	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;7:302-10 PUBMED
36	Lincks J, Boyan BD, Blanchard CR, Lohmann CH, Liu Y, Cochran DL, Dean DD, Schwartz Z. Response of MG-63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials 1998;19:2219-32 DOI ScienceOn
37	Boyan BD, Hummert TW, Dean DD, Schwartz Z. Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. Biomaterials 1996;17:137-46 DOI ScienceOn
38	Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lundstrom J. Osseointerated titanim implants: requirements for ensuring a longlasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155-70 DOI PUBMED
39	Ramires PA, Romito F, Cosentino F, Milella E. The influence of titania/hydroxyapatite composite coatings on in vitro osteoblasts behaviour. Biomaterials 2001; 22:1467-74 DOI ScienceOn
40	Castellani R, de Ruijter JE, Renggli H, Jansen JA. Response of rat bone marrow cells to differently roughened titanium discs. Clin Oral Impl Res 1999;10:369-78 DOI ScienceOn
41	Vezeau PJ, Koorbusch GF, Draughn RA, Keller JC. Effects of multiple sterilization on surface characteristics and in vitro biologic responses to titanium. J Oral maxillofac Surg 1996;54:738-46 DOI ScienceOn
42	Ong JL, Cardens HL, Cavin R, Carnes DL. Osteoblast responses to BMP-2-treated titanium in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:649-54 PUBMED
43	Gofredsen K, Nimb L, Hjorting-Hansen E, Jenssen JS, Holmen A. Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for $TiO_2$ -blasfed titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:77-84 DOI ScienceOn
44	Cochran D, Simpson J, Weber H, Buser D. Attachment and growth of periodontal cells on smooth and rough titanium. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:289-97
45	Lim YJ, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT, Martin TB. Surface characterizations of variously treated titanium materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 2001;16:333-42 PUBMED
46	Cooper LF, Masuda T, Whitson SW, Yliheikkiltl P, Felton DA. Formation of mineralizing osteoblast cultures on machined, titanium oxide grit-blasted, and plasma-sprayed titanium surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:37-47 PUBMED
47	Chang Y, Stanford CM, Wefel JS, Keller jc. Osteoblastic cell attachment to hydroxyapatitecoated implant surfaces in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:239-247 PUBMED
48	Gichard DJ, Gowen M, MacDonald BR.Proliferative reponses to estradiol, IL-1alpha and TGF beta by cells expressing alkaline phosphatase in human osteoblast like cell cultures. Calcif Tissue Int 1993;52:227-33 DOI ScienceOn
49	Hazan R, Brener R, Oron U. Bone growth to metal implants is regulated by their surface chemical properties. Biomaterials 1993;14:570-574 DOI ScienceOn
50	Albrektsson T, Jansson T, Lekholm U. Osseointegrated dental implants. Dent Clin N Am 1986;30:151-70
51	Piatelli A, Manzon L, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Piatelli M. Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of the bone response to machined and sandblasted titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13;805-10
52	Brunette DM. The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:231-246 PUBMED
53	Freshney RI. Culture of animal cells: A manual of basic technique. Third edition. NewYork, wiley-liss inc. 1994 :4-5
54	Fini M, Cigada A, Rondelli G, Chiesa R, Giardino R, Giavaresi G, Aldini NN, Torricelli P, Vincentini B. In vitro and in vivo behaviour of Ca- and P- enriched anodized titanium. Biomaterials. 1999;20:1587-94 DOI ScienceOn