Disaggregated osteoclasts increase in resorption activity in response to roughness of bone surface

Abstract

The roughness of the bone matrix surface affects osteoblastic differentiation. However, the effect of the roughness of the matrix surface on osteoclastic bone resorption remains to be studied. We examined the latter effect using disaggregated osteoclasts from neonatal rats. The resorption pit number and the total pit area on the rough surface were not different from those on smooth surfaces after 1 day, but they were 2 or more times higher after 3 days. The number of osteoclasts was not different on bone slices with either smooth or rough surfaces at 3 days. The alkaline phosphatase (ALP)-positive osteoblasts were relatively rare in both types of slices at first, then the number and the diameter of the enzyme-positive cells and the clusters preferentially increased on the rough bone slices. When hydroxyurea was added to the culture in order to suppress the proliferation and the subsequent differentiation of osteoblastic cells on rough surfaces, the increase in resorption on the rough surfaces was effaced; however, this agent had little affect on resorption of the smooth surfaces. The addition of ALP-positive cells to disaggregated osteoclasts increased bone resorption on the smooth surface. The results suggest that osteoblast development and subsequently bone resorption by osteoclasts is enhanced by the roughness of matrix surfaces.

Adsorption of bisphosphonate onto hydroxyapatite using a novel co‐precipitation technique for bone growth enhancement

“…7). Both samples showed resorption pits comparable to those detected by other investigators16, 24, 38, 39, 41 The resorption pits on the bone appeared characteristically scallop‐shaped, with long meandering trails, attributed to the movement of the osteoclast whilst resorbing. The resorption pits on the SBF‐HA showed two parts, apparent apatite crystals in the centre of the pit, whilst the edge remains sharp and dense.…”

Polishing and coating carbon fiber-reinforced carbon composites with a carbon-titanium layer enhances adhesion and growth of osteoblast-like MG63 cells and vascular smooth muscle cellsin vitro

“…In an in vivo study performed in a canine total hip arthroplasty model,18 the bone tissue apposition on a corundum‐blasted titanium alloy was higher on smoother surfaces ( R a from 2.9 to 6.7 μm). Moreover, the release of titanium into the culture medium was lower for the smoother samples,24 and the resorption of bovine cortical bone by osteoclasts in cultures derived from rat long bones was lower on smoother bone slices 26…”

“…The biocompatibility of artificial materials designed for or used in hard tissue surgery usually has been tested in terms of their interactions with osteoblasts and osteoclasts6, 14–18, 20–28 but more rarely with soft‐tissue cells present in the bone or in close proximity to the bone, such as fibroblasts17, 19, 29 or vascular cells, including endothelium, pericytes, and smooth muscle cells 30–33. In titanium‐coated bone implants, a vascular network has been seen in the grooves on the material surface, that is, in the interface between the implant and the newly formed bone 32.…”

Osteoclasts on Bone and Dentin In Vitro: Mechanism of Trail Formation and Comparison of Resorption Behavior

“…Geblinger et al [ 30 – 32 ] reported an increased half-life of the actin rings of resorbing RAW 264.7 osteoclast-like cells on rough artificial calcium substrates compared to smooth ones (roughness in the nanometer range), which could explain our observed tendency for higher resorption on the rough surfaces, as well as a very high dynamics of the sealing-zone being locally regulated by surface roughness. However, topography-dependent higher resorption on rougher surfaces is described in the literature in osteoclast-like cell lines and osteoclasts generated from bone marrow [ 33 – 36 ]. Nevertheless, the effects in cultures of primary osteoclasts may be due to the presence of osteoblastic cells or stromal cells, which are well known to strongly affect osteoclastic behavior [ 34 ].…”