Tuning of Titanium Microfiber Scaffold with UV-Photofunctionalization for Enhanced Osteoblast Affinity and Function.
Animals
Bone Marrow Cells
/ cytology
Calcification, Physiologic
/ physiology
Cell Culture Techniques
Cells, Cultured
Femur
/ cytology
Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions
Male
Mandible
/ cytology
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Osseointegration
Osteoblasts
/ chemistry
Osteogenesis
/ physiology
Rats
Rats, Sprague-Dawley
Surface Properties
/ radiation effects
Tissue Engineering
Tissue Scaffolds
/ chemistry
Titanium
/ chemistry
Ultraviolet Rays
acid-etching
cell attachment
osseointegration
osteoblast
titanium fiber scaffold
titanium surface
ultraviolet treatment
Journal
International journal of molecular sciences
ISSN: 1422-0067
Titre abrégé: Int J Mol Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101092791
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jan 2020
23 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
28
12
2019
revised:
17
01
2020
accepted:
20
01
2020
entrez:
26
1
2020
pubmed:
26
1
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Titanium (Ti) is an osteoconductive material that is routinely used as a bulk implant to fix and restore bones and teeth. This study explored the effective use of Ti as a bone engineering scaffold. Challenges to overcome were: (1) difficult liquid/cell infiltration into Ti microfiber scaffolds due to the hydrophobic nature of Ti; and (2) difficult cell attachment on thin and curved Ti microfibers. A recent discovery of UV-photofunctionalization of Ti prompted us to examine its effect on Ti microfiber scaffolds. Scaffolds in disk form were made by weaving grade 4 pure Ti microfibers (125 µm diameter) and half of them were acid-etched to roughen the surface. Some of the scaffolds with original or acid-etched surfaces were further treated by UV light before cell culture. Ti microfiber scaffolds, regardless of the surface type, were hydrophobic and did not allow glycerol/water liquid to infiltrate, whereas, after UV treatment, the scaffolds became hydrophilic and immediately absorbed the liquid. Osteogenic cells from two different origins, derived from the femoral and mandibular bone marrow of rats, were cultured on the scaffolds. The number of cells attached to scaffolds during the early stage of culture within 24 h was 3-10 times greater when the scaffolds were treated with UV. The development of cytoplasmic projections and cytoskeletal, as well as the expression of focal adhesion protein, were exclusively observed on UV-treated scaffolds. Osteoblastic functional phenotypes, such as alkaline phosphatase activity and calcium mineralization, were 2-15 times greater on UV-treated scaffolds, with more pronounced enhancement on acid-etched scaffolds compared to that on the original scaffolds. These effects of UV treatment were associated with a significant reduction in atomic carbon on the Ti microfiber surfaces. In conclusion, UV treatment of Ti microfiber scaffolds tunes their physicochemical properties and effectively enhances the attachment and function of osteoblasts, proposing a new strategy for bone engineering.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31979313
pii: ijms21030738
doi: 10.3390/ijms21030738
pmc: PMC7036837
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Titanium
D1JT611TNE
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Biomaterials. 2009 Sep;30(26):4268-76
pubmed: 19473697
Biomaterials. 2016 Jan;75:223-236
pubmed: 26513415
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Mar-Apr;18(2):200-10
pubmed: 12705297
Acta Biomater. 2009 Oct;5(8):3247-57
pubmed: 19427421
J Dent Res. 2000 Nov;79(11):1857-63
pubmed: 11145355
Biomaterials. 2009 Feb;30(6):1015-25
pubmed: 19042016
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Sep-Oct;25(5):888-92
pubmed: 20862401
Eur J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb-Mar;90(2-3):157-63
pubmed: 20655620
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Mar-Apr;26(2):245-50
pubmed: 21483876
Artif Organs. 2013 Mar;37(3):267-75
pubmed: 23356400
Implant Dent. 2018 Aug;27(4):405-414
pubmed: 29851661
Biomaterials. 2010 Apr;31(10):2717-27
pubmed: 20035996
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 May-Jun;31(3):676-86
pubmed: 27183088
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Apr;74(4):861.e1-16
pubmed: 26704430
J Biomater Appl. 2016 Mar;30(8):1242-50
pubmed: 26656313
J Dent Res. 2006 Jun;85(6):560-5
pubmed: 16723656
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jul-Aug;27(4):753-61
pubmed: 22848875
Biomaterials. 2009 Oct;30(29):5352-63
pubmed: 19595450
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015 Apr;49:623-631
pubmed: 25686991
Acta Biomater. 2010 Dec;6(12):4578-88
pubmed: 20633705
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Jun;37(6):542-9
pubmed: 18325739
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005 Mar 1;72(3):296-305
pubmed: 15654712
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Sep/Oct;33(5):1098-1102
pubmed: 30231097
Biomaterials. 2010 May;31(14):3827-39
pubmed: 20153521
Biomaterials. 2000 Oct;21(19):2003-9
pubmed: 10941922
Cell Biochem Biophys. 2009;53(3):115-26
pubmed: 19350419
J Prosthodont. 2002 Dec;11(4):241-7
pubmed: 12501137
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Jul;100:165-177
pubmed: 30948050
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jan-Feb;29(1):e95-102
pubmed: 24451893
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Oct;41(10):1304-9
pubmed: 22513355