Surface- and nonsurface-dependent in vitro effects of bone substitutes on cell viability

Abstract

The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different bone substitute materials (BSM) on the viability of human primary osteoblasts (PO), bone marrow mesenchymal cells (BMMC), and nonadherent myelomonocytic cells (U937). Six different bone substitute materials were tested: Bio-Oss Spongiosa (BOS), Tutodent Chips (TC), PepGen P-15 (P-15), Ostim (OM), BioBase (BB), and Cerasorb (CER). Cells were cultivated on comparable volumes of BSM in 96-well plates. Cell culture-treated polystyrol (Nunclon Delta surface; C) served as positive control. After 2 h and 3, 6, 10, and 14 days, viability of cells was evaluated using a standardized ATP viability assay (CellTiter Glo). Nonsurface-dependent effects of the materials were separately tested using nonadherent U937 suspension cells. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used. Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. Cell viability of PO increased significantly on TC, C, and CER followed by BB. No changes were found for P-15 and decreasing viability for BOS and OM. BMMC showed similar results on C, TC, CER, and P-15. Lower viability for BB and no viability could be detected for BOS and OM (Mann-Whitney test, respectively). Nonadherent cells displayed increasing viability in presence of CER, BB, and BOS. No changes were observed for TC and P-15, whereas for OM, no viability was detected after a maximum cultivation period of 3 days. It was concluded that granular hydroxyapatite (HA; TC, BOS, P-15) and alpha- and beta-tricalciumphosphate (CER, BB) support, whereas nanosized HA (OM) limit or even inhibit surface- and nonsurface-related cell viability in the in vitro model used.

In vitro study of the biological interface of Bio‐Oss: implications of the experimental setup

“…; Herten et al. ). Our data indicate that the usage of such high concentrations of Bio‐Oss in in vitro experiments would decrease the Ca concentration with approximately 90% of initial “physiological” Ca levels (1.8 mM) in the medium.…”

Clinical Applications of Cell‐Based Approaches in Alveolar Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review

“…A range of autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic, and alloplastic scaffolds was reported across the included studies. DBBM (Bio‐Oss) was used as a scaffold for MSCs in five controlled SA studies with favorable outcomes – indicating that it provides adequate osteoconductivity, porosity for vascular in‐growth, and stability for cell proliferation . On the other hand, PLGA scaffolds yielded less than favorable outcomes in three studies .…”

The Use of Platelet Rich Plasma, Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 and Different Scaffolds in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery - Literature Review in Comparison with Own Clinical Experience

“…The use of PRP in combination with anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM): several authors did not find any advantage in using PRP in addition to ABBM in bone development [35-37]. Fan et al [38], Graziano et al [39], Mata et al [40], Kim et al [41], Le Guehennec et al [42] highlighted that osteoblasts have difficulties in adhering to smooth surfaces, but ABBM has a smooth surface [43,44]. Due to this, most attempts of creating new bone using ABBM may not be able to provide close contact between bone and the bovine material under reproducible conditions.…”