Understanding improved osteoblast behavior on select nanoporous anodic alumina

International Journal of Nanomedicine

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 3325-3334

  Ni, Siyu ^a   Li, Changyan ^a   Ni, Shirong ^b   Chen, Ting ^a   Webster, Thomas J ^c,d  

^a DONGHUA UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b WENZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c Northeastern University   (United States)

^d KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

Adhesion; Nanostructure; Orthopedics; Preosteoblast; Proliferation

Indexed keywords

NANOMATERIAL; NANOPOROUS ANODIC ALUMINA; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ALUMINUM OXIDE;

ADSORPTION; ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CELL ADHESION; CELL COUNTING; CELL DENSITY; CELL GROWTH; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL STRUCTURE; CELL SURFACE; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FIELD EMISSION SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; MOUSE; NANOPORE; NONHUMAN; OSTEOBLAST; PARTICLE SIZE; WETTABILITY; X RAY PHOTOELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY; ANIMAL; CELL LINE; CHEMISTRY; CYTOLOGY; DRUG EFFECTS; POROSITY;

ADSORPTION; ALUMINUM OXIDE; ANIMALS; CELL ADHESION; CELL LINE; CELL PROLIFERATION; MICE; NANOPORES; OSTEOBLASTS; PARTICLE SIZE; POROSITY;

EID: 84904356051     PISSN: 11769114     EISSN: 11782013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S60346     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Martínez E, Engel E, Planell JA, Samitier J. Effects of artificial microand nano-structured surfaces on cell behavior. Ann Anat. 2009; 191(1):126-135.
2. Mitragotri S, Lahann J. Physical approaches to biomaterial design. Nat Mater. 2009;8(1):15-23.
3. Lee J, Kang BS, Hicks B, et al. The control of cell adhesion and viability by zinc oxide nanorods. Biomaterials. 2008;29(27):3743-3749.
4. Richert L, Vetrone F, Yi JH, et al. Surface nanopatterning to control cell growth. Adv Mater. 2008;20(8):1488-1492.
5. Smith BS, Yoriya S, Johnson T, Popat KC. Dermal fibroblast and epidermal keratinocyte functionality on titania nanotube arrays. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(6):2686-2696.
6. Park J, Bauer S, von der Mark K, Schmuki P. Nanosize and vitality: TiO2 nanotube diameter directs cell fate. Nano Lett. 2007;7(6):1686-1691.
7. Durmus NG, Webster TJ. Nanostructured titanium: the ideal material for improving orthopedic implant efficacy? Nanomedicine. 2012; 7(6):791-793.
8. Brammer KS, Oh S, Cobb CJ, Bjursten LM, van de Heyde H, Jin S. Improved bone-forming functionality on diameter-controlled TiO2 nanotube surface. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(8):3215-3223.
9. Ercan B, Taylor E, Alpaslan E, Webster TJ. Diameter of titanium nanotubes influences anti-bacterial efficacy. Nanotechnology. 2011; 22(29):295102.
10. Khang D, Lu J, Yao C, Haberstroh KM, Webster TJ. The role of nanometer and sub-micron surface features on vascular and bone cell adhesion on titanium. Biomaterials. 2008;29(8):970-983.
11. Li AP, Müller F, Birner A, Nielsch K, Gösele U. Hexagonal pore arrays with a 50-420 nm interpore distance formed by self-organization in anodic alumina. J Appl Phys. 1998;84(11):6023-6026.
12. Chen W, Wu JS, Xia XH. Porous anodic alumina with continuously manipulated pore/cell size. ACS Nano. 2008;2(5):959-965.
13. Li YB, Zheng MJ, Ma L, Shen WZ. Fabrication of highly ordered nanoporous alumina films by stable high-field anodization. Nanotechnology. 2006;17(20):5101-5105.
14. Norman JJ, Desai TA. Methods for fabrication of nanoscale topography for tissue engineering scaffolds. Ann Biomed Eng. 2006;34(1): 89-101.
15. Briggs EP, Walpole AR, Wilshaw PR, Karlsson M, Pålsgård E. Formation of highly adherent nano-porous alumina on Ti-based substrates: a novel bone implant coating. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004; 15(9):1021-1029.
16. Popat KC, Leary Swan EE, Mukhatyar V, et al. Influence of nanoporous alumina membranes on long-term osteoblast response. Biomaterials. 2005;26(22):4516-4522.
17. Swan EE, Popat KC, Grimes CA, Desai TA. Fabrication and evaluation of nanoporous alumina membranes for osteoblast culture. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005;72(3):288-295.
18. Karlsson M, Tang L. Surface morphology and adsorbed proteins affect phagocyte response to nano-porous alumina. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17(11):1101-1111.
19. Hoess A, Teuscher N, Thormann A, Aurich H, Heilmann A. Cultivation of hepatoma cell line HepG2 on nanoporous aluminum oxide membranes. Acta Biomater. 2007;3(1):43-50.
20. Wang HJ, Sun YY, Cao Y, et al. Is there an optimal topographical surface in nano-scale affecting protein adsorption and cell behaviors? Part II. J Nanopart Res. 2012;14(5):862-871.
21. Wang HJ, Cao Y, Sun YY, et al. Is there an optimal topographical surface in nano-scale affecting protein adsorption and cell behaviors? J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(9):4201-4210.
22. Hu J, Tian JH, Shi J, et al. Cell culture on AAO nanoporous substrated with and without geometry constrains. Microelectron Eng. 2011;88(8): 1714-1717.
23. Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Tare R, et al. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater. 2007;6(12):997-1003.
24. Chung SH, Son SJ, Min J. The nanostructure effect on the adhesion and growth rates of epithelial cells with well-defined nanoporous alumina substrates. Nanotechnology. 2010;21(12):125104.
25. Sulka GD, Brzózka A, Zaraska L, Jaskula M. Through-hole membranes of nanoporous alumina formed by anodizing in oxalic acid and their applications in fabrication of nanowire arrays. Electrochim Acta. 2010;55(14):4368-4376.
26. Masuda H, Fukuda K. Ordered metal nanohole arrays made by a 2-step replication of honeycomb structure of anodic alumina. Science. 1995;268(5216):1466-1468.
27. Ni SY, Lin KL, Chang J, Chou L. β-CaSiO3/β-Ca3(PO4)2 composite materials for hard tissue repair: In vitro studies. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;85A(1):72-82.
28. Lee JW, Lee KS, Cho N, Ju BK, Lee KB, Lee SH. Topographical guidance of mouse neuronal cell SiO2 microtracks. Sensor Actuat B Chem. 2007;128(1):252-257.
29. Neupane MP, Park II S, Bae TS, Yi HK, Watari F, Lee MH. Biocompatibility of TiO2 nanotubes fabricated on Ti using different surfactant additives in electrolyte. Mater Chem Phys. 2012;134(1):536-541.
30. Lincks J, Boyan BD, Blanchard CR, et al. Response of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials. 1998;19(23):2219-2232.
31. Wei JH, Igarashi T, Okumori N, et al. Influence of surface wettability on competitive protein adsorption and initial attachment of osteoblasts. Biomed Mater. 2009;4(4):045002.
32. Thian ES, Ahmad Z, Huang J, et al. The role of surface wettability and surface charge of electrosprayed nanoapatites on the behavior osteoblasts. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(3):750-755.
33. Carpenter J, Khang D, Webster TJ. Nanometer polymer surface features: the influence on surface energy, protein adsorption and endothelial cell adhesion. Nanotechnology. 2008;19(50):505103.
34. Lim JY, Donahue HJ. Cell sensing and response to microand nanostructured surfaces produced by chemical and topographic patterning. Tissue Eng. 2007;13(8):1879-1891.
35. Misra RDK, Girase B, Nune VKC, Xu W. Cellular interactions and modulated osteoblasts functions mediated by protein adsorption. Adv Eng Mater. 2012;14(5):B247-B257.
36. Misra RD, Nune C, Pesacreta TC, Somani MC, Karjalainen LP. Interplay between grain structure and protein adsorption on functional response of osteoblasts: Ultrafine-grained versus coarse-grained substrates. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101(1):1-12.
37. Bigerelle M, Anselme K. Statistical correlation between cell adhesion and proliferation on biocompatible metallic materials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005;72(1):36-46.
38. Anselme K, Bigerelle M, Noel B, et al. Qualitative and quantitative study of human osteoblast adhesion on materials with various surface roughnesses. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49(2):155-166.