The influence of implant surface properties on cell adhesion and proliferation
- 532 Downloads
Interactions of the foreign material of implant and the living tissue on the cell level can cause prolonged healing or, worse, loss of the implant. The cell response to the presence of some implant materials was studied under in vitro conditions.
The influence of physicochemical surface parameters on the response of the cells in the immediate vicinity of implants, namely on adhesion, proliferation and synthetic activity of fibroblasts, and on the blood coagulation were compared. The direct contact of tested materials (titanium and Ti6Al4V alloy with various surface treatments, Cr Co Mo alloy, hydroxyapatite-coated titanium, zirconium oxide ceramics, polyethylene and carbon composite) on cell spreading was monitored and the presence of TNF-α and IL-8 was evaluated in the cultivation medium. The formation of blood clots was investigated on samples immersed in a well with freshly drawn whole rabbit blood using a scanning electron microscope. The surface free energy was estimated using the measurement of static contact angle. Both the advancing and receding contact angles were measured by the dynamic Wilhemy plate method.
Two main groups with extremes in cell viability were established. In the first group the increased polar component of surface free energy, the highest cell density, the lowest inflammatory cytokine production, but no fibres in the clotting blood were found. On the contrary, the second group of materials with a very low polar component of the surface free energy showed distinctly higher expression of inflammatory mediators, low cell proliferation, but faster formation of fibres in the blood coagulum.
KeywordsContact Angle Surface Free Energy Polar Component Static Contact Angle Ti6Al4V Alloy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.G. N. BANCROFT and A. G. MIKOS, Tissue Eng. Ther. Use 5 (2001) 151.Google Scholar
- 3.B. KASEMO and J. LAUSMAA, Environ Health Perspect 102 (1994) 41.Google Scholar
- 6.C. MASCRES and J. F. MARCHAND, J. Biol. Buccale 11 (1983) 137.Google Scholar
- 7.J. E. DAVIES, J. Dent. Educ. 67 (2003) 932.Google Scholar
- 9.V. PEŠÉKOVÉCUT, K. SMETANA Jr., K. BALÍK, J. HRUŠKA, M. PETRTÁL, H. HULEJOVÉand M. ADAM, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 14 (2003) 531.Google Scholar
- 11.A. D. STEINBERG, R. WILLEY and J. L. DRUMMOND, J. Periodontol. 63 (1992) 990.Google Scholar
- 13.R. M. PILLAR, Clin. Oral. Impl. Res. 13 (2002) 305.Google Scholar
- 15.J. L. ONG and D. C. CHAN, Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 28 (2000) 667.Google Scholar
- 27.N. J. HALLAB, K. J. BUNDY, K. O’CONNOR, R. CLARK and R.L. MOSES, Term. Eff. Med. Implants 53 (1995) 209.Google Scholar