Response of rat bone marrow cells to commercially pure titanium submitted to different surface treatments

Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 173-180

  Xavier, Samuel P ^a   Carvalho, Paulo S P ^b   Beloti, Márcio M ^a   Rosa, Adalberto L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Biocompatibility; Rat bone marrow cell; Surface treatment; Titanium

Indexed keywords

ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE; BIOMATERIAL; PROTEIN; TITANIUM;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOCOMPATIBILITY; BIOSYNTHESIS; BONE DEVELOPMENT; BONE MARROW CELL; CELL ADHESION; CELL ASSAY; CELL CULTURE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL STRUCTURE; CEMENTATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENZYME ACTIVITY; ENZYME ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; MALE; METABOLISM; NONHUMAN; OSTEOBLAST; PHYSIOLOGY; PROTEIN CONTENT; RAT; RAT STRAIN; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH IMPLANTATION;

EID: 0038040211     PISSN: 03005712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00027-7     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Dunlap J. Implants: implications for general dentists. Dental Enconomics. 78:1988;101-112.
2. Brunski J.B., Puleo D.A., Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future development. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 15:2000;15-46.
3. Castellani R., de Ruijter J.E., Renggli H., et al. Response of rat bone marrow cells to differently roughened titanium discs. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 10:1999;369-378.
4. Brånemark P.I. Osseointegration and its experimental background. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 50:1983;399-410.
5. Klokkevold P.R., Nishimura R.D., Adachi M., et al. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 8:1997;442-447.
6. Anselme K., Linez P., Bigerelle M., et al. The relative influence of the topography and chemistry of TiAl6V4 surfaces on osteoblastic cell behaviour. Biomaterials. 21:2000;1567-1577.
7. Keller J.C., Dougherty W.J., Grotendorst G.R., et al. In vitro cell attachment to characterized cpTi surfaces. The Journal of Adhesion. 28:1989;115-133.
8. Keller J.C., Draughn R.A., Wrightman J.P., et al. Characterization of sterilized CP titanium implant surfaces. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 5:1990;360-369.
9. Lim Y.J., Oshida Y., Andres C.J., et al. Surface characterizations of variously treated titanium materials. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 16:2001;333-342.
10. Buser D., Schenk R.K., Steinemann S., et al. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 25:1991;889-902.
11. Chehroudi B., Gould T.R., Brunette D.M. Effects of a grooved epoxy substratum on ephitelial behavior in vivo and in vitro. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 22:1988;459-477.
12. Feighan J.E., Goldberg V.M., Davy D., et al. The influence of surface blasting on the incorporation of titanium-alloy implants in a rabbit intramedullary model. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [America]. 77:1995;1380-1395.
13. Boyan B.D., Batzer R., Kieswetter K., et al. Titanium surface roughness alters responsiveness of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to 1α,25-(OH)2D3. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 39:1997;77-85.
14. Callen B.W., Lowenberg B.F., Lugowski S., et al. Nitric passivation of Ti6Al4V reduces thickness of surface oxide layer and increases trace element release. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 29:1995;279-290.
15. Cochran D.L., Nummikoski P.V., Higginbottom F.L., et al. Evaluation of an endosseous titanium implant with sandblasted and acid etched surface in the canine mandible: radiographic results. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 7:1996;240-252.
16. Wilke A., Orth J., Lomb M., et al. Biocompatibility analysis of different biomaterials in human bone marrow cell cultures. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 40:1998;301-306.
17. Maniatopoulos C., Sodek J., Melcher A.H. Bone formation in vitro by stromal cells obtained from bone marrow of young adult rats. Cell and Tissue Research. 254:1988;317-330.
18. Lowry O.H., Rosebrough N.J., Farr A.L., et al. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 193:1951;265-275.
19. Anselme K., Bigerelle M., Noel B., et al. Qualitative and quantitative study of human osteoblast adhesion on materials with various surface roughnesses. Journal of Bimedical Materials Research. 49:2000;155-166.
20. Albrektsson T. Surface roughness of intraoral dental implant fixtures. Dental Implantology Update. 9:1998;73-77.
21. Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T., Johansson C., et al. Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials. 17:1996;15-22.
22. Orsini G., Assenza B., Scarano A., et al. Surface analysis of machined versus sandblasted and acid etched titanium implants. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 15:2000;779-784.
23. Deligianni D.D., Katsala N.D., Koutsoukos P.G., et al. Effect of surface roughness of hydoxyapatite on human bone marrow cell adhesion, proliferation, differentiation and detachment strength. Biomaterials. 22:2001;87-96.
24. Martin J.Y., Schwartz Z., Hummert T.W., et al. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 29:1995;389-401.
25. Doillon C.J., Silver F.H., Berg R.A. Fibroblast growth on a porous collagen sponge containing hyaluronic acid and fibronectin. Biomaterials. 8:1987;195-200.
26. Puleo D.A., Holleran L., Domerus R.H., et al. Osteoblast response to orthopedic implant materials in vitro. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 25:1991;711-723.
27. Rosa A.L., Beloti M.M. Rat bone marrow cell response to titanium and titanium alloy with different surface roughness. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 14:2003;43-48.
28. Rosa A.L., Beloti M.M. Effect of cpTi surface roughness on human bone marrow cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. Brazilian Dental Journal. 14:2003;16-21.
29. Mayer U., Szulczewski D.H., Moeller K., et al. Attachment kinetics and differentiation of osteoblasts on different biomaterial surfaces. Cells and Materials. 3:1993;129-140.
30. Hatano K., Inoue H., Kojo T., et al. Effect of surface roughness on proliferation and alkaline phosphatase expression of rat calvarial cells cultured on polystyrene. Bone. 25:1999;439-445.
31. Owen T.A., Aronow M., Shalhoub V., et al. Progressive development of the rat osteoblast phenotype in vitro: reciprocal relationships in expression of genes associated with osteoblast proliferation and differentiation during formation of the bone extracellular matrix. Journal of Cellular Physiology. 143:1999;357-370.
32. Lincks J., Boyan B.D., Blachard C.R., et al. Response of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials. 19:1998;2219-2232.
33. Perizzolo D., Lacefield W.R., Brunette D.M. Interaction between topography and coating in the formation of bone nodules in culture for hydroxyapatite and titanium-coated micromachined surfaces. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 56:2001;494-503.
34. Bellows C.G., Heersche J.N., Aubin J.E. Aluminium accelerates osteoblastic differentiation but is cytotoxic in long-term rat calvaria cell cultures. Calcified Tissue International. 65:1999;59-65.