Osteoblast function on nanophase alumina materials: Influence of chemistry, phase, and topography.

Alumina is a material that has been used in both dental and orthopedic applications. It is with these uses in mind that osteoblast (bone-forming cell) function on alumina of varying particulate size, chemistry, and phase was tested in order to determine what formulation might be the most beneficial for bone regeneration. Specifically, in vitro osteoblast adhesion, proliferation, intracellular alkaline phosphatase activity, and calcium deposition was observed on delta-phase nanospherical, alpha-phase conventional spherical, and boehmite nanofiber alumina. Results showed for the first time increased osteoblast functions on the nanofiber alumina. Specifically, a 16% increase in osteoblast adhesion over nanophase spherical alumina and a 97% increase over conventional spherical alumina were found for nanofiber alumina after 2 h. A 29% increase in cell number after 5 days and up to a 57% greater amount of calcium was found on the surface of the nanofiber alumina compared with other alumina surfaces. Some of the possible explanations for such enhanced osteoblast behavior on nanofiber alumina may be attributed to chemistry, crystalline phase, and topography. Increased osteoblast function on nanofiber alumina suggests that it may be an ideal material for use in orthopedic and dental applications.

[1]  R. Bizios,et al.  Osteoblast population migration characteristics on substrates modified with immobilized adhesive peptides. , 1999, Biomaterials.

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

[3]  L. Sedel,et al.  Behavior of human osteoblastic cells on stoichiometric hydroxyapatite and type A carbonate apatite: role of surface energy. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[4]  K. Buttle,et al.  Composite morphology of the bone and associated support-tissue interfaces to osseointegrated dental implants: TEM and HVEM analyses. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  L. Sabbatini,et al.  Synthesis, analytical characterization, and osteoblast adhesion properties on RGD-grafted polypyrrole coatings on titanium substrates , 2000, Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition.

[6]  Anthony G. Gristina,et al.  Host Reactions to Biomaterials and Their Evaluation , 1996 .

[7]  T. Webster,et al.  Mechanisms of enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase alumina involve vitronectin. , 2001, Tissue engineering.

[8]  D. Hungerford,et al.  Immunohistochemical evaluation of interface membranes from failed cemented and uncemented acetabular components. , 1999, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[9]  F. Howell,et al.  Light microscopic and scanning electron microscopic analyses of dental implants retrieved from humans. , 1994, The Journal of oral implantology.

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

[11]  T. Young,et al.  Light microscopic and scanning electron microscopic retrieval analyses of implanted biomaterials retrieved from humans and experimental animals. , 2001, The Journal of oral implantology.

[12]  M. Neo,et al.  Effects of apatite and wollastonite containing glass-ceramic powder and two types of alumina powder in composites on osteoblastic differentiation of bone marrow cells. , 2001, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[13]  T. Webster,et al.  Specific proteins mediate enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[14]  C. R. Howlett,et al.  Mechanism of initial attachment of cells derived from human bone to commonly used prosthetic materials during cell culture. , 1994, Biomaterials.

[15]  T. Webster,et al.  Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[16]  O. H. Lowry,et al.  The quantitative histochemistry of brain. II. Enzyme measurements. , 1954, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[17]  T. Webster,et al.  Osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics. , 1999, Biomaterials.

[18]  K. Anselme,et al.  Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[19]  A. Meunier,et al.  Bioactivity of sol-gel bioactive glass coated alumina implants. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[20]  R. Bizios,et al.  Design and function of novel osteoblast-adhesive peptides for chemical modification of biomaterials. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[21]  T. Young,et al.  The Biologic Tissue Responses to Uncoated and Coated Implanted Biomaterials , 1999, Advances in dental research.

[22]  D. Ginley,et al.  Nanosized alumina fibers , 2001 .