Response of osteoblastic cells to titanium submitted to three different surface treatments

Abstract

In the complex process of bone formation at the implant-tissue interface, surface properties are relevant factors modulating osteoblastic function. In this study, commercially pure titanium (cp Ti) samples were prepared with different surface characteristics using chemical attack with a sulfuric acid/hydrochloric acid based solution (treatment A); chemical attack plus anodic oxidation using phosphoric acid (treatment B); and chemical attack plus thermal oxidation followed by immersion in a sodium fluoride solution (treatment C). The samples were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), contact profilometry and contact angle. The biological performance of the prepared surfaces was evaluated using mice osteoblastic cell cultures for up to 21 days. Cells seeded on the different titanium samples showed similar behavior during cell attachment and spreading. However, cellular proliferation and differentiation were higher for samples submitted to treatments A and C (p < or = 0.05; n = 3), which were less rough and showed surface free energy with smaller polar components.

Titanium implant surface modification by cathodic reduction in hydrofluoric acid: Surface characterization and in vivo performance

“…In contrast, the fluoride concentration detected in the implant surfaces showed a positive correlation to the pull‐out results, confirming a positive net effect on bone retention. This effect has also been observed in earlier studies 19, 38, 47. Although the fluoride amount in the surfaces of the groups treated with HF at 0.001 and 0.01 vol % were equal, the implant performance differed during the pull‐out tests; thus, fluoride was obviously not the only element of the surface modification that affected the implant performance in vivo .…”

“…Indeed, implants with rough surfaces are typically associated with higher retention force in bone, when compared with smooth‐surface implants 33–36. However, too rough surfaces have shown lower bone attachment strength than less rough surfaces 37, 38. The analysis was not aimed to show that rough surfaces are better than smooth, but to understand which parameters of the surface topography influence most the implant retention in bone.…”

Direct-write assembly of 3D scaffolds using colloidal calcium phosphates inks

“…Another important feature is the surface free energy, which influences cellular adhesion strength and proliferation. It has been shown that low cell adhesion strength is related to the dispersive component of SFE [21]. Previous works also demonstrated that: the more hydrophilic the material the more cells will adhere on the surface [22,23].…”

Characterization of thermally oxidized Ti6Al7Nb alloy for biological applications

“…*Corresponding author: cimenogluh@itu.edu.tr ©KIM and Springer Besides wear resistance, biological response is another issue to be taken into consideration because it has a crucial importance on long term bone/implant interface stability and functional performance of the implants. To the knowledge of the authors, there are a limited number of reports focusing on the biological response of titanium-based materials after the TO process [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Therefore, this study aims at contributing to the existent knowledge by analyzing the in-vitro performance of original and thermally oxidized Ti6Al7Nb alloy by means of wear and biological tests.…”