Response of primary fibroblasts and osteoblasts to plasma treated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) surfaces

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a synthetic polymer with suitable biomechanical and stable chemical properties, which make it attractive for use as an endoprothetic material and for ligamentous replacement. However, chemical surface inertness does not account for a good interfacial biocompatibility, and PEEK requires a surface modification prior to its application in vivo.In the course of this experimental study we analyzed the influence of plasma treatment of PEEK surfaces on the cell proliferation and differentiation of primary fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Further we examined the possibility of inducing microstructured cell growth on a surface with plasma-induced chemical micropatterning.We were able to demonstrate that the surface treatment of PEEK with a low-temperature plasma has significant effects on the proliferation of fibroblasts. Depending on the surface treatment, the proliferation rate can either be stimulated or suppressed. The behavior of the osteoblasts was examined by evaluating differentiation parameters.By detection of alkaline phosphatase, collagen I, and mineralized extracellular matrix as parameters for osteoblastic differentiation, the examined materials showed results comparable to commercially available polymer cell culture materials such as tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS). Further microstructured cell growth was produced successfully on micropatterned PEEK foils, which could be a future tool for bioartificial systems applying the methods of tissue engineering.These results show that chemically inert materials such as PEEK may be modified specifically through the methods of plasma technology in order to improve biocompatibility.

[1]  T. Horbett,et al.  Proteins at interfaces II : fundamentals and applications : developed from a symposium sponsored by the Division of Colloid and Surface Science at the 207th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Diego, California, March 13-17, 1994 , 1995 .

[2]  M. Grant,et al.  In vitro biocompatibility testing of polymers for orthopaedic implants using cultured fibroblasts and osteoblasts. , 1995, Biomaterials.

[3]  J. Hollinger,et al.  Macrophysiologic Roles of a Delivery System for Vulnerary Factors Needed for Bone Regeneration , 1997, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[4]  B. Ratner Biomedical Applications of Synthetic Polymers , 1989 .

[5]  P S Walker,et al.  Attachment and proliferation of osteoblasts and fibroblasts on biomaterials for orthopaedic use. , 1995, Biomaterials.

[6]  G. Karsenty,et al.  A Cbfa1-dependent genetic pathway controls bone formation beyond embryonic development. , 1999, Genes & development.

[7]  D. Castner,et al.  Surface Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials , 1997 .

[8]  R. Jilka,et al.  Formation of bone by isolated, cultured osteoblasts in millipore diffusion chambers , 1982, Calcified Tissue International.

[9]  R. M. Turner,et al.  Potential of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon-fibre-reinforced PEEK in medical applications , 1987 .

[10]  O. Noiset,et al.  Fibronectin adsorption or/and covalent grafting on chemically modified PEEK film surfaces. , 1999, Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition.

[11]  R. Thull,et al.  Oberflächenmodifikationen zur Verbesserung von Biokompatibilität und mechanischen Eigenschaften von orthopädischen Implantaten , 2003, Der Orthopäde.

[12]  J. M. Kennedy,et al.  Long-term compressive property durability of carbon fibre-reinforced polyetheretherketone composite in physiological saline. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[13]  K. Schröder,et al.  Plasma-induced chemical micropatterning for cell culturing applications: a brief review , 1999 .

[14]  P. Schaffner,et al.  Spezifische Bioaktivierung von Implantatoberflächen , 2000 .

[15]  D. Puleo,et al.  Osteoblast responses to orthopedic implant materials in vitro. , 1991, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[16]  R. Bizios,et al.  Surfaces modified with covalently-immobilized adhesive peptides affect fibroblast population motility. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[17]  A. Schilling,et al.  Biologically and chemically optimized composites of carbonated apatite and polyglycolide as bone substitution materials. , 2001, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[18]  Stanley A. Brown,et al.  In vitro biocompatibility of polyetheretherketone and polysulfone composites. , 1990, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[19]  O. Noiset,et al.  Adhesion and growth of CaCo2 cells on surface-modified PEEK substrata , 2000, Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition.

[20]  J. Westendorf,et al.  Polyetheretherketone--cytotoxicity and mutagenicity in vitro. , 2002, Biomaterials.

[21]  K. Schröder,et al.  On the Applicability of Plasma Assisted Chemical Micropatterning to Different Polymeric Biomaterials , 2002 .

[22]  Karsten Schröder,et al.  Plasma-induced surface functionalization of polymeric biomaterials in ammonia plasma , 2001 .

[23]  A. Rezania,et al.  A probabilistic approach to measure the strength of bone cell adhesion to chemically modified surfaces , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[24]  S. Cook,et al.  Preliminary evaluation of titanium-coated PEEK dental implants. , 1995, The Journal of oral implantology.

[25]  R. Tuan,et al.  Testing of Skeletal Implant Surfaces With Human Fetal Osteoblasts , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.