2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109883
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surface potential and charges impact on cell responses on biomaterials interfaces for medical applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

6
105
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(113 citation statements)
references
References 238 publications
6
105
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Cell-material interactions are highly complex and require more systematic investigations regarding surface charge. It is certain that electrostatic forces are crucial for cellular attachment via focal adhesion to material surfaces ( Metwally and Stachewicz, 2019 ) influencing the further fate of cells. Earlier studies have mostly dealt with a limited number of surface charges [e.g., only negative surfaces ( Altankov et al, 2003 ), one positive compared with several negative surfaces ( Chang et al, 2014 ), or only one negative, neutral and positive surface charge ( Iwai et al, 2013 )] disallowing detailed statements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Cell-material interactions are highly complex and require more systematic investigations regarding surface charge. It is certain that electrostatic forces are crucial for cellular attachment via focal adhesion to material surfaces ( Metwally and Stachewicz, 2019 ) influencing the further fate of cells. Earlier studies have mostly dealt with a limited number of surface charges [e.g., only negative surfaces ( Altankov et al, 2003 ), one positive compared with several negative surfaces ( Chang et al, 2014 ), or only one negative, neutral and positive surface charge ( Iwai et al, 2013 )] disallowing detailed statements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As human osteoblasts are negatively charged (Rebl et al, 2016), positive surface charges significantly influence cell adhesion (Rebl et al, 2010;Dhowre et al, 2015;Mörke et al, 2017), spreading and proliferation (Staehlke et al, 2019), particularly in the early stages of cell responses. The most detailed study on the effect of surface charges to date is that of Metwally and Stachewicz (2019), indicating a great importance in the development of functionally implantable biomaterials. They reviewed that surface charges determine protein adsorption and thus the subsequent cell adhesion process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is no general trend that describes the relationship between the surface roughness and the cell response; it always depends also on other physicochemical properties of the biomaterials and the specific cells and their phenotype [ 21 ]. The surface charge of the material strongly affects the cell behavior [ 22 ] and it can be regulated through the chemical functional groups in the polymer chains. The positively charged surface has been proved to provide significantly better cell adhesion to the material surface or the cell-cell interaction than the negatively charged surface [ 23 , 24 , 25 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PS is mostly used for in vitro studies [4,5,32], but without any surface modification, for example, sliver negative ion implementation [33], protein absorption [34], or plasma treatment [35,36], does not enhance cell development. PS fibers have been already combined with PA6 fibers [37] in the fog collector's meshes, comparing fiber diameter, roughness, contact angle, and the showing mechanical properties of PS, PA6, and PS-PA6 mats of maximum stress 0.03, 1.24 and 0.07 MPa, respectively [38].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%