Comparison of candidate materials for a synthetic osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis device

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 21-29

  Tan, Xiao Wei ^a   Perera, A Promoda P ^a   Tan, Anna ^b   Tan, Donald ^a,b,c   Khor, K A ^d   Beuerman, Roger W ^a,c,e   Mehta, Jodhbir S ^a,b,c,f  

^a SINGAPORE EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Singapore)

^b Singa pore National Eye Centre   (Singapore)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^d NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^e NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^f DUKE NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM OXIDE; BETA1 INTEGRIN; GELSOLIN; HYDROXYAPATITE; METAL OXIDE; TITANIUM DIOXIDE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VINCULIN; YTTRIA STABILIZED ZIRCONIA; BIOMATERIAL; CYTOSKELETON PROTEIN; TITANIUM; Y TZP CERAMIC; Y-TZP CERAMIC; YTTRIUM; ZIRCONIUM;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; BACTERIUM ADHERENCE; BIOCOMPATIBILITY; CELL ADHESION; CELL ASSAY; CELL COUNT; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL SPREADING; CELL STRUCTURE; CELL VIABILITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFOCAL MICROSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA CELL; DENSITY; FOCAL ADHESION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMMUNOBLOTTING; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE TEST; KERATOPROSTHESIS; MATERIALS TESTING; NONHUMAN; OSTEO ODONTO KERATOPROSTHESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS MATERIAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SPREAD PLATE METHOD; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; SURFACE PROPERTY; CANINE TOOTH; CELL CULTURE; CELL SURVIVAL; CORNEA DISEASE; CORNEA STROMA; CYTOLOGY; FIBROBLAST; JAW; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; TRANSPLANTATION; ULTRASTRUCTURE; WESTERN BLOTTING;

ALUMINUM OXIDE; ALVEOLAR PROCESS; BACTERIAL ADHESION; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; BLOTTING, WESTERN; CELL ADHESION; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL SURVIVAL; CELLS, CULTURED; CORNEAL DISEASES; CORNEAL STROMA; CUSPID; CYTOSKELETAL PROTEINS; DURAPATITE; FIBROBLASTS; HUMANS; MICROSCOPY, ATOMIC FORCE; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; TITANIUM; YTTRIUM; ZIRCONIUM;

EID: 79952208482     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6186     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Whitcher JP, Srinivasan M, Upadhyay MP. Corneal blindness: a global perspective. Bull WHO. 2001;79:214-221.
2. Tan DT, Tay AB, Theng JT, et al. Keratoprosthesis surgery for end-stage corneal blindness in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:503-510, e503.
3. Kumar RS, Tan DT, Por YM, et al. Glaucoma management in patients with osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP): the Singapore OOKP Study. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:354-360.
4. Strampelli B. Keratoprosthesis with osteoodontal tissue. Am J Ophthalmol. 1963;89:1029-1039.
5. Tay AB, Tan DT, Lye KW, Theng J, Parthasarathy A, Por YM. Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis surgery: a combined ocular-oral procedure for ocular blindness. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Surg. 2007;36:807-813.
6. Ciolino JB DC. Biologic keratoprosthesis materials. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2009;49:1-9.
7. Viitala R, Franklin V, Green D, Liu C, Lloyd A, Tighe B. Towards a synthetic osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis. Acta Biomater. 2009;5: 438-452.
8. Lloyd AW, Faragher RG, Denyer SP. Ocular biomaterials and implants. Biomaterials. 2001;22:769-785.
9. Hicks C, Crawford G, Chirila T, et al. Development and clinical assessment of an artificial cornea. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2000;19: 149-170.
10. Hicks CR, Fitton JH, Chirila TV, Crawford GJ, Constable IJ. Keratoprostheses: advancing toward a true artificial cornea. Surv Ophthalmol. 1997;42:175-189.
11. Krause A. Intracorneal biocompatibility of glass ceramics. Contac-tologia. 1992;14E:28-31.
12. Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, Conway RM, Ben-Nissan B. Porous orbital implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv Ophthal-mol. 2007;52:145-155.
13. Linnola RJ, Happonen RP, Andersson OH, et al. Titanium and bioactive glass-ceramic coated titanium as materials for keratopros-thesis. Exp Eye Res. 1996;63:471-478.
14. Polack FM. Clinical results with a ceramic keratoprostheses. Cornea. 1983;2:185-196.
15. Polack FM, Heimke G. Ceramic keratoprostheses. Ophthalmology. 1980;87:693-698.
16. Wang XP, Ma X, Wang LY, Du X, Huang YF, Cui FZ. Fast deposition of hydroxyapatite coating on titanium to modify cell affinity of corneal fibroblast in vitro. Front Mater Sci China. 2007;1:410- 414.
17. Mehta JS, Futter CE, Sandeman SR, et al. Hydroxyapatite promotes superior keratocyte adhesion and proliferation in comparison with current keratoprosthesis skirt materials. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89:1356-1362.
18. Gristina AG. Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science. 1987;237:1588-1595.
19. Buck JD, Cleverdon RC. The spread plate as a method for the enumeration of marine bacteria. Limnol Oceanogr. 1960;5:78-80.
20. Mustafa R, öksüzoglu1 AE, Weirich TE, Fuess H, Hahn H. Evolution of the surface roughness (dynamic scaling) and microstructure of sputter-deposited Ag75Co25 granular films. J Phys Condensed Matter. 2000;12:9237-9245.
21. Wang W, Wong PL. The dynamic measurement of surface topography using a light-section technique. Tribotest. 2003;9:305-316.
22. Zhang X, Wojcikiewicz EP, Moy VT. Dynamic adhesion of T lymphocytes to endothelial cells revealed by atomic force microscopy. Exp Biol Med. 2006;231:1306-1312.
23. Allan B. Closer to nature: new biomaterials and tissue engineering in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1235-1240.
24. Liu C, Paul B, Tandon R, et al. The osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP). Semin Ophthalmol. 2005;20:113-128.
25. Sun L, Berndt CC, Gross KA, Kucuk A. Material fundamentals and clinical performance of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings: a review. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58:570-592.
26. Duran A. ACaAGCea: sol-gel coatings for protection and bioactiva-tion of metals used in orthopaedic devices. J Mater Chem. 2004; 14:2282-2290.
27. Yakimenko S. Results of a PMMA/titanium keratoprostheses in 502 eyes. Refract Corneal Surg. 1993;9:197-198.
28. Schilling AF, Linhart W, Filke S, et al. Resorbability of bone substitute biomaterials by human osteoclasts. Biomaterials. 2004;25: 3963-3972.
29. Nair SP, Meghji S, Wilson M, Reddi K, White P, Henderson B. Bacterially induced bone destruction: mechanisms and misconceptions. Infect Immun. 1996;64:2371-2380.
30. Quinn JM, Gillespie MT. Modulation of osteoclast formation. Bio-chem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;328:739-745.
31. Islam S, Hassan F, Tumurkhuu G, et al. Bacterial lipopolysaccharide induces osteoclast formation in RAW 264.7 macrophage cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;360:346-351.
32. Xu J, Bai XD, Jiu A, Fan YD. Effect of yttrium ion implantation on aqueous corrosion resistance of zircaloy-4. J Mater Sci Lett. 2000; 19:1633-1635.
33. Kim TI, Han JH, Lee IS, Lee KH, Shin MC, Choi BB. New titanium alloys for biomaterials: a study of mechanical and corrosion properties and cytotoxicity. Biomed Mater Eng. 1997;7:253-263.
34. Miller WS, Zhuang L, Bottema J, et al. Recent development in aluminium alloys for the automotive industry. Mater Sci Eng A. 2000;280:37-49.
35. Gottenbos B, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Initial adhesion and surface growth of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on biomedical polymers. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000; 50:208-214.
36. An YH, Friedman RJ. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43: 338-348.
37. Wadstrom T. Molecular aspects of bacterial adhesion, colonization, and development of infections associated with biomaterials. J Invest Surg. 1989;2:353-360.
38. Vaudaux PE, Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Infection Associated with Indwelling Medical Devices. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: A.L. Bisno; 1989.
39. Poelstra KA, Barekzi NA, Rediske AM, Felts AG, Slunt JB, Grainger DW. Prophylactic treatment of gram-positive and gram-negative abdominal implant infections using locally delivered polyclonal antibodies. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;60:206-215.
40. Colon G, Ward BC, Webster TJ. Increased osteoblast and decreased Staphylococcus epidermidis functions on nanophase ZnO and TiO2. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;78:595-604.
41. Jayaraman M, Meyer U, Buhner M, Joos U, Wiesmann HP. Influence of titanium surfaces on attachment of osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Biomaterials. 2004;25:625-631.
42. Spiteri CG, Pilliar RM, Kandel RA. Substrate porosity enhances chondrocyte attachment, spreading, and cartilage tissue formation in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;78:676-683.
43. Nasatzky EGJ, Schwartz Z. The role of surface roughness in promoting osteointegration. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim. 2003;20: 8-19.
44. Att WTM, Ogawa T. Effect of titanium surface characteristics on the behavior and function of oral fibroblasts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:419-431.
45. An N, Wieland M, Andrukhov O, Matejka M, Rausch-Fan X. Proliferation, behavior, and cytokine gene expression of human umbilical vascular endothelial cells in response to different titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009;93:364-372.
46. Pelham RJ Jr, Wang Y. Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997; 94:13661-13665.
47. Wang HB, Dembo M, Wang YL. Substrate flexibility regulates growth and apoptosis of normal but not transformed cells. Am J Physiol. 2000;279:C1345-C1350.
48. Gristina R, D'Aloia E, Senesi GS, et al. Increasing cell adhesion on plasma deposited fluorocarbon coatings by changing the surface topography. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;88:139-149.
49. Delon I, Brown NH. Integrins and the actin cytoskeleton. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2007;19:43-50.
50. Giancotti FG, Ruoslahti E. Integrin signaling. Science. 1999;285: 1028-1032.
51. Worth DC, Parsons M. Adhesion dynamics: mechanisms and measurements. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2008;40:2397-2409.
52. Richards RG, Gwynn I, Bundy KJ, Rahn BA. Microjet impingement followed by scanning electron microscopy as a qualitative technique to compare cellular adhesion to various biomaterials. Cell Biol Int. 1995;19:1015-1024.
53. Wojcikiewicz EP, Zhang X, Chen A, Moy VT. Contributions of molecular binding events and cellular compliance to the modulation of leukocyte adhesion. J Cell Sci. 2003;116:2531-2539.
54. Wu WZ, Lu HS, Cai JY, He XH, Hu Y, Zhao HX. Membrane surface nanostructures and adhesion property of T lymphocytes exploited by AFM. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2009;4:942-947.
55. Fu G, Milburn C, Mwenifumbo S, et al. Shear assay measurements of cell adhesion on biomaterials surfaces. Mater Sci Eng C. 2009; 29:1293-1301.