2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.11.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Texture direction of combined microgrooves and submicroscale topographies of titanium substrata influence adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation in human primary cells

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results are supported by several lines of evidence: (1) controlled grooves significantly increase the mechanical interlock between the implant and joining biomaterial [5]. In addition, cells are especially responsive to groove architecture (particularly shape and direction) and on such surfaces cells aligned and migrated along the groove direction [25,26]; (2) Microscale surface features on implants, such as microroughness [27] and microporosity [28], can act as potent modulators of cellular function through the onset of focal adhesion formation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our results are supported by several lines of evidence: (1) controlled grooves significantly increase the mechanical interlock between the implant and joining biomaterial [5]. In addition, cells are especially responsive to groove architecture (particularly shape and direction) and on such surfaces cells aligned and migrated along the groove direction [25,26]; (2) Microscale surface features on implants, such as microroughness [27] and microporosity [28], can act as potent modulators of cellular function through the onset of focal adhesion formation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Micron to nanometer size grooves can control the cell settlement on implant surfaces or be used to direct tissue generation at the implant/bone interface [4]. A variety of implant surface modifications, including surface cutting, etching, and ion deposition techniques, have been studied and facilitate the formation of an extracellular matrix on the implant surface [4,5,6,7]. Micron to nanosize texturing on the implant is one of the simplest, most scalable, inexpensive, and supplementary surface treatment tools employed to direct the bone response at the interface between an implant and the bone tissue [8,9,10,11,12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been shown that texturing of biomaterials increases cell adhesion in comparison to flat, smooth surfaces. Topography of a material can be characterized by different roughness parameters (Ra, Sa, Sm -measured in nanometres) determined by AFM, confocal microscopy, optical profilometry, SEM or tactile profilometry [47]. Knowing that the in vivo microenvironment is not flat, it is important to understand the function of cells grown on topographies that mimic natural conditions.…”
Section: Engineering Biosurface Topographical Cues At the Micro-and Nmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although considerable advances have already been made to improve the biological performance of cement, the ideal long-term mechanical stability of a cemented implant has still not been achieved. An ideal cementing material for cemented surgeries should have surface energy and mechanical interlock to ensure a long-lasting fixation between the implant-cement and the cement-bone interfaces [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. The critical task for creating a long lasting tissue-implant interface resides in achieving the functional integration to mimic the native tissue-tissue failure response [ 5 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%