Systematic study of osteoblast and fibroblast response to roughness by means of surface-morphology gradients.

The surface roughness of a medical implant is of great importance since the surface is in direct contact with the host tissue (e.g. bone, fibrous tissue). The response of cells to roughness is different depending on the cell type. However, the influence of roughness on cell behavior has only rarely been systematically studied. We have developed a surface-modification process to produce roughness gradients that cover a wide range of roughness values on one substratum. Such gradients allow for systematic investigations of roughness on cell behavior. Gradients were fabricated using a two-step roughening and smoothening process, involving sandblasting and a subsequent chemical polishing step. In order to produce a set of identical surfaces we applied a replica technique. Cell experiments were carried out with rat calvarial osteoblasts (RCO) and human gingival fibroblasts (HGF). RCOs showed a significantly increased proliferation rate with increasing surface roughness. The footprint of osteoblasts varied in size at different positions on the gradient, remaining small on the rough end of the gradient and increasing considerably as the roughness decreased. HGF showed the opposite proliferation behavior, proliferation decreasing with increasing roughness. The fibroblast morphology was found to be similar to that seen for osteoblasts.

[1]  D. Cochran,et al.  Attachment and Growth of Periodontal Cells on Smooth and Rough Titanium. , 1994, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  M. Wieland.  Experimental determination and quantitative evaluation of the surface composition and topography of medical implant surfaces and their influence on osteoblastic cell-surface interactions , 1999 .

[3]  H. Kim,et al.  Varying Ti-6Al-4V surface roughness induces different early morphologic and molecular responses in MG63 osteoblast-like cells. , 2005, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[4]  A. Harris,et al.  Anomalous preferences of cultured macrophages for hydrophobic and roughened substrata. , 1981, Journal of cell science.

[5]  B D Boyan,et al.  Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). , 1995, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[6]  T. Kojo,et al.  Effect of surface roughness on proliferation and alkaline phosphatase expression of rat calvarial cells cultured on polystyrene. , 1999, Bone.

[7]  N. Spencer,et al.  Fabrication of material-independent morphology gradients for high-throughput applications , 2006 .

[8]  M. Beloti,et al.  Effect of cpTi surface roughness on human bone marrow cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. , 2003, Brazilian dental journal.

[9]  L. Bonewald,et al.  Maturation State Determines the Response of Osteogenic Cells to Surface Roughness and 1,25‐Dihydroxyvitamin D3 , 2000, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[10]  B D Boyan,et al.  Surface roughness modulates the local production of growth factors and cytokines by osteoblast-like MG-63 cells. , 1996, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[11]  N. Jaffrezic‐Renault,et al.  Nitinol surface roughness modulates in vitro cell response: a comparison between fibroblasts and osteoblasts , 2005 .

[12]  T. Kawai,et al.  Effect of microstructure of titanium surface on the behaviour of osteogenic cell line MC3T3-E1 , 1998, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[13]  David L. Cochran,et al.  Mechanisms Involved in Osteoblast Response to Implant Surface Morphology , 2001 .

[14]  D. Cochran,et al.  A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. , 1999, Journal of periodontology.

[15]  A Wennerberg,et al.  Determining optimal surface roughness of TiO(2) blasted titanium implant material for attachment, proliferation and differentiation of cells derived from human mandibular alveolar bone. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  J. Kivilahti,et al.  Effect of surface processing on the attachment, orientation, and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts on titanium. , 1992, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[17]  L. Bonewald,et al.  Localization of 1,25-(OH)2D3-responsive alkaline phosphatase in osteoblast-like cells (ROS 17/2.8, MG 63, and MC 3T3) and growth cartilage cells in culture. , 1989, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[18]  D. Landolt,et al.  Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[19]  Maxence Bigerelle,et al.  The relative influence of the topography and chemistry of TiAl6V4 surfaces on osteoblastic cell behaviour. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[20]  D. Landolt,et al.  Time-dependent morphology and adhesion of osteoblastic cells on titanium model surfaces featuring scale-resolved topography. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[21]  Marcus Textor,et al.  Titanium in Medicine : material science, surface science, engineering, biological responses and medical applications , 2001 .

[22]  D. Brunette,et al.  Mechanical stretching increases the number of cultured bone cells synthesizing DNA and alters their pattern of protein synthesis , 1985, Calcified Tissue International.

[23]  Marc Quirynen,et al.  Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  D. Brunette,et al.  Effects of a grooved epoxy substratum on epithelial cell behavior in vitro and in vivo. , 1988, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[25]  C J Murphy,et al.  Effects of synthetic micro- and nano-structured surfaces on cell behavior. , 1999, Biomaterials.

[26]  Ali Othmane,et al.  Effect of surface topography and chemistry on adhesion, orientation and growth of fibroblasts on nickel–titanium substrates , 2002 .

[27]  M. Textor,et al.  Use of Ti-coated replicas to investigate the effects on fibroblast shape of surfaces with varying roughness and constant chemical composition. , 2002, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[28]  Alamgir Karim,et al.  Combinatorial characterization of cell interactions with polymer surfaces. , 2003, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[29]  B. Merz,et al.  The development of the ITI DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM. Part 2: 1998-2000: Steps into the next millennium. , 2000, Clinical oral implants research.

[30]  Bengt Herbert Kasemo,et al.  Biological surface science , 1998 .

[31]  P. Elvin,et al.  The adhesiveness of normal and SV40-transformed BALB/c 3T3 cells: effects of culture density and shear rate. , 1982, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.

[32]  D. Brunette.  Principles of Cell Behavior on Titanium Surfaces and Their Application to Implanted Devices , 2001 .

[33]  M. Scacchi,et al.  The development of the ITI DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM. Part 1: A review of the literature. , 2000, Clinical oral implants research.

[34]  D. Brunette,et al.  The effects of the surface topography of micromachined titanium substrata on cell behavior in vitro and in vivo. , 1999, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[35]  J. Ellingsen,et al.  Bio-Implant Interface: Improving Biomaterials and Tissue Reactions , 2003 .

[36]  J. Amédée,et al.  Effect of surface roughness of the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V on human bone marrow cell response and on protein adsorption. , 2001, Biomaterials.

[37]  D. Puleo,et al.  Understanding and controlling the bone-implant interface. , 1999, Biomaterials.

[38]  Newell R Washburn,et al.  High-throughput investigation of osteoblast response to polymer crystallinity: influence of nanometer-scale roughness on proliferation. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[39]  Maxence Bigerelle,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative study of human osteoblast adhesion on materials with various surface roughnesses. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.