1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(96)00128-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interaction of cells on chargeable functional group gradient surfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
175
3

Year Published

1998
1998
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 238 publications
(183 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
5
175
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This behavior was attributed more to the hydrophilicity than the effect of the functional group. 79,81 The reason for relatively insignificant effects of functional group density on in vivo tissue responses, as observed in the present study, is not clear at this moment. It is possible that once a threshold density of a particular functional group is made available, further increases in these groups are relatively ineffective in that an essentially similar initial biomolecule surface-interaction, ultimately responsible for the capsule formation, cell infiltration, etc., dominates under in vivo conditions, independent of functional group concentrations, independent on the surface chemistry.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This behavior was attributed more to the hydrophilicity than the effect of the functional group. 79,81 The reason for relatively insignificant effects of functional group density on in vivo tissue responses, as observed in the present study, is not clear at this moment. It is possible that once a threshold density of a particular functional group is made available, further increases in these groups are relatively ineffective in that an essentially similar initial biomolecule surface-interaction, ultimately responsible for the capsule formation, cell infiltration, etc., dominates under in vivo conditions, independent of functional group concentrations, independent on the surface chemistry.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
“…This observation can be correlated with previous studies which have linked the negatively charged surface functionality inhibiting the migration of negatively charged cells towards the functionalized surface. 43,68,[78][79][80] Rather unexpectedly, we find that the density of surface functionality has little or no influence on tissuereactions to microsphere implants. These results contradict many in vitro observations which found cell adhesion to be directly correlated to the density of functionalization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…The physicochemical properties of different materials could modulate cell morphology and behavior. Signaling from polymers that drive the cell growth pattern is complex and may originate from dipole and electric charge interaction forces, hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity or surface free energy, and roughness and rigidity, surface tension, and substrate topography (18)(19)(20). The morphology of Vero cells on pure PLLA scaffolds observed here was similar to previous results obtained by our group (7,8,21), which showed that round or spreading cells attached on PLLA surface by thin cytoplasmatic filaments.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its importance in the design of implantable scaffolds was first reported by Weiss in 1960, 16 later confirmed by many others. 5,[17][18][19][20][21][22] Since cells effectively adhered onto polymer surfaces with moderate wettability as demonstrated by water contact angles of 40-70 degress, [23][24][25][26][27] it is clear that the wettability of a biomaterial surface plays a critical role in cell attachment and proliferation. [28][29][30] In addition, it has been shown that most human bone marrow stromal cells attached to hydrophobic (HP) surfaces had smaller surface contact areas, resulting in a more rounded cell morphology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%