Implant surface roughness influences osteoclast proliferation and differentiation.

The osteoclast is a hematopoietic cell derived from CFU-GM and branches from the monocyte-macrophage lineage during the differentiation process. Biological environment appears to be crucial for osteoclast formation and activity. It has been reported that bone remodeling following implant placement requires a coordinated activity by osteoclasts and osteoblasts. The response of such cells at the bone-implant interface has been suggested to be affected by the structural and morphological features of the biomaterial surface. To shed more light on this topic we performed a multiparametric analysis of murine monocytes response to different titanium surfaces. These cells, RAW 264.7 type TIB-71, represent a very useful system because they differentiate into osteoclasts following treatment of definite doses of the osteoclast-differentiation factor RANKL and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF). Cells, cultured on glass (control), on grade 3 machined and on titanium pull-spray superficial-TPSS surfaces disclosed profound different responses in terms of morphological rearrangements, adhesion, and differentiation abilities. Indeed, after 14 days, cells cultured on glass and machined surfaces were uniformly distributed, while, on the TPSS surface cells strictly aggregated into small isolated clusters were observed. In addition, cells cultured on the machined surface displayed a higher adhesion ability, while cells cultured on the rougher surface disclosed a more evident capability to differentiate. These results could explain the higher bone-implant contact percentage found around implants with rougher surfaces and suggest that osteoclasts may play an important role in the initial period after implant placement to prime or prepare the implant surface for the osteoblast activity.

[1]  H. Zreiqat,et al.  Factors regulating osteoclast formation in human tissues adjacent to peri-implant bone loss: expression of receptor activator NFkappaB, RANK ligand and osteoprotegerin. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[2]  S. Volinia,et al.  Analysis of osteoblast-like MG63 cells' response to a rough implant surface by means of DNA microarray. , 2003, The Journal of oral implantology.

[3]  J. Glowacki,et al.  Osteoclastic bone resorption around intraosseous screws in rat and pig mandibles , 2003, Microscopy research and technique.

[4]  R. Strocchi,et al.  Spreading of epithelial cells on machined and sandblasted titanium surfaces: an in vitro study. , 2003, Journal of periodontology.

[5]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Osteoclast activity around loaded and unloaded implants: a histological study in the beagle dog. , 2003, The Journal of oral implantology.

[6]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. , 2002, The Journal of oral implantology.

[7]  V. Goldberg,et al.  Adherent Endotoxin on Orthopedic Wear Particles Stimulates Cytokine Production and Osteoclast Differentiation , 2001, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[8]  F. Ross,et al.  Estrogen Decreases Osteoclast Formation by Down-regulating Receptor Activator of NF-κB Ligand (RANKL)-induced JNK Activation* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[9]  N. Fujii,et al.  Tissue response to titanium implants in the rat maxilla: ultrastructural and histochemical observations of the bone-titanium interface. , 2000, Journal of periodontology.

[10]  G D Roodman,et al.  Cell biology of the osteoclast. , 1999, Experimental hematology.

[11]  C. Minkin,et al.  Role of the Osteoclast at the Bone-Implant Interface , 1999, Advances in dental research.

[12]  G. Mundy Cellular and molecular regulation of bone turnover. , 1999, Bone.

[13]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of the bone response to machined and sandblasted titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. , 1998, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[14]  L. Cooper,et al.  Cell and matrix reactions at titanium implants in surgically prepared rat tibiae. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  T. Norman,et al.  Microdamage of human cortical bone: incidence and morphology in long bones. , 1997, Bone.

[16]  D. Cochran,et al.  Evaluation of an endosseous titanium implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface in the canine mandible: radiographic results. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  Roodman Gd Advances in bone biology: the osteoclast. , 1996, Endocrine reviews.

[18]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Torque and histomorphometric evaluation of c.p. titanium screws blasted with 25- and 75-microns-sized particles of Al2O3. , 1996, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[19]  Lars Sennerby,et al.  Early tissue response to titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical bone , 1993 .

[20]  C. R. Howlett,et al.  Differentiation of human bone-derived cells grown on GRGDSP-peptide bound titanium surfaces. , 2003, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[21]  H. Ozawa,et al.  Effects of oestrogen deficiency on osteoclastogenesis in the rat periodontium. , 2002, Archives of oral biology.

[22]  A. Parfitt Targeted and nontargeted bone remodeling: relationship to basic multicellular unit origination and progression. , 2002, Bone.

[23]  R. Martin,et al.  Is all cortical bone remodeling initiated by microdamage? , 2002, Bone.

[24]  D B Burr,et al.  Targeted and nontargeted remodeling. , 2002, Bone.

[25]  P. Revell,et al.  Frustrated wound healing: the immunopathogenesis of bone resorption , 2000 .

[26]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.