Titanium substrata composition influences osteoblastic phenotype:In vitro study

Abstract

In spite of observed differences at the interface between boon and either commercially pure titanium [Ti(cpi)] or titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), the mechanism of such a response is ill understood. This prompted further investigation of the influence of similar metals on human bone-derived cells (HBDCs). This study investigated the influence of Ti(cpi) and its alloy on osteoblastic proteins formed by HBDCs grown for 5, 7, 10, and 14 days on these metals and compared them to cells grown on tissue culture polystyrene plates. Messenger RNA and translated proteins that form an array of osteogenic parameters were determined: alkaline phosphatase (ALP), thrombospondin, osteopontin, osteocalcin (OC), osteonectin (ON/SPARC), type I collagen (Col I) and bone sialoprotein (BSP). At the four predetermined time points, cells grown on either Ti(cpi) or Ti-6Al-4V generally expressed similar mRNA levels, while levels of their respective proteins differed. Cells on Ti(cpi) had peak levels for most proteins at day 7, whereas those on Ti-6Al-4V peaked at either day 5 and/or day 7. At day 5 cells grown on Ti-6Al-4V had higher levels of ALP, Col I, ON/SPARC, OC, and BSP than those in Ti(cpi); this difference was not maintained at later time points in culture. The differential regulation of proteins occurring between cells from the same patient grown on titanium and its alloy implies that HBDCs respond to small differences in the surface chemistry and/or microcrystallinity.

The gene-expression and phenotypic response of hFOB 1.19 osteoblasts to surface-modified titanium and zirconia

“…Five mg RNA of every sample were reverse transcribed into cDNA with 200 U Superscript II (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and 100 mM oligo(dT) [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (Invitrogen) as primer. The primer sequences of selected genes (see Table 1) were determined with the aid of the ''Universal Probe Library'' from Roche (http://qpcr.probefinder.…”

“…An implant's surface chemistry, energy, topography, and roughness influences the initial cell response at the cell-material interface, ultimately affecting the rate and quality of new tissue formation [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Cell contact, cell attachment, and subsequent cell adhesion of anchorage-dependent cells are among the earliest steps in cell-material interactions [13,14].…”

Physiological strains remodel extracellular matrix and cell–cell adhesion in osteoblastic cells cultured on alumina-coated titanium alloy

“…As that the first events initiated by osteoblastic cells at the implant interface are determinant for later phenomena such as proliferation, differentiation and mineralisation [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22], many studies have analysed the influence of the chemical composition of implants and their surface properties (rugosity, topography, wettability, energy surfaces and passivation) on osteoblast behaviour [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. However, all of these experiments were performed under static conditions and did not take into account the presence of mechanical deformations at the cell-implant interface and their effects on the osteoblastic phenotype.…”

Biological Activation of Inert Ceramics: Recent Advances Using Tailored Self-Assembled Monolayers on Implant Ceramic Surfaces

“…An alternative to osteoblast adhesion could be the chemotactic recruitment of osteoblast-progenitor cells, e.g., human mesenchymal stem cells, hMSCs, onto the surface and their subsequent differentiation thereupon. Experiments performed on human bone-derived cells cultured on titanium based substrates have implied a strong differentiation potential of the cells depending on the underlying structure topography [97,98]. Therefore, proteins currently under investigation for the improvement of differentiation of osteoblast-like cells on modified surface chemistries are chemotactic growth factors such as members of the TGF family, e.g., β 1 , as well as BMP adhesion proteins.…”