Characterization of cellular response to thiol‐modified gold surfaces implanted in mouse peritoneal cavity

Nygren, Håkan; Kanagaraja, Sanjiv; Braide, Magnus; Eriksson, Cecilia; Lundström, Ingemar

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(199905)45:2<117::aid-jbm6>3.3.co;2-0

Cited by 1 publication

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2), that the membrane permeability to FDA/PI is affected by the substrate of adhesion, 10 and that the respiratory burst response of the adhering cells differs between materials. 10 The conceptual interpretation of data is that material surfaces with a low PI + /FDA + ratio of adhering cells and with a preserved ability to mount a respiratory burst when challenged with PMA or zymosan are biocompatible surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The results of the present study show, in accord with previous studies, that peritoneal leukocytes adhere to materials implanted intraperitoneally 5,8,10 (Fig. 2), that the membrane permeability to FDA/PI is affected by the substrate of adhesion, 10 and that the respiratory burst response of the adhering cells differs between materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…5,8,10 The results of the present study indicate that the surface energy of the material determines the initial adhesion of cells, because the level of adhering cells was equal at all hydrophobic surfaces and an order of magnitude higher at the hydrophilic surface (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Upon retrieval, samples where bleeding could be observed with the naked eye were discarded. 5,10 Fluorescence microscopy…”

Section: Implantation Of Materials Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have previously developed a procedure for testing viability and the respiratory burst response of surfaceadhering leukocytes after short-time exposure of materials to the peritoneal environment. 10 Here we use that procedure to test the biocompatibility of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium compared with that of stainless steel. The stainless steel implants were made macroporous in order to investigate short-time effects of pores previously reported to have an effect on the chronic inflammation at polymer implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Respiratory burst response of peritoneal leukocytes adhering to titanium and stainless steel

Nygren¹,

Hrustic²,

Karlsson³

et al. 2001

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium sheets, made hydrophilic by oxidative cleaning or hydrophobic by treatment with butanol, and stainless steel sheets with different patterns of pores (straight phi = 0.8 mm) were implanted into the peritoneal cavity of mice. The implants were removed after 2 h, and the surface-adhering leukocytes were stained with propidium iodide and fluorescein diacetate to quantitate cell adhesion and to indicate the presence of leaks in the cell membrane. The ability of the surface-adhering leukocytes to mount a respiratory burst response after stimulation with PMA or zymosan was measured by chemiluminiscence. The results show that stainless steel without pores induces membrane leakage in 80% of the surface-adhering leukocytes compared with 65% of cells adhering to porous steel. Hydrophilic titanium induces membrane leakage in 48% of the surface-adhering leukocytes compared with 19% of cells adhering to hydrophobic titanium. The respiratory burst response of the surface-adhering leukocytes stimulated with PMA was attenuated on stainless steel and hydrophilic titanium compared with hydrophobic titanium. Thus, butanol treatment of titanium and pores in stainless steel increase the biocompatibility of the materials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%