4.3 Article

TiO2 nanoparticles synergize with substrate mechanics to improve dental pulp stem cells proliferation and differentiation

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111366

Keywords

Dental pulp stem cells; Rutile TiO2 nanoparticles; Substrate mechanics; Osteogenesis; Odontogenesis

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1344267]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies have shown that TiO2 nanoparticles can promote dental pulp stem cells differentiation into osteoblasts and odontoblasts, with a decrease in particle uptake after TiO2 addition and increased mineral deposition on fibers.
Multiple studies exist on the influence of TiO2 nanoparticle uptake on cell behavior. Yet little is known about the lingering influence of nanoparticles accumulation within the external environment which is particularly important to stem cell differentiation. Herein, dental pulp stem cells were cultured on hard and soft polybutadiene substrates, where 0.1 mg/mL rutile TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced once, 24 h after plating. In the absence of TiO2, the doubling time on soft substrate is significantly longer, while addition of TiO2 decreases it to the same level as on the hard substrate. FACS analysis indicates particle uptake initially at 25% is reduced to 2.5% after 14 days. In the absence of TiO2, no biomineralization on the soft and snowflake-like hydroxyapatite deposits on the hard substrate are shown at week 4. With the addition of TiO2, SEM/EDAX reveals copious mineral deposition templated on large banded collagen fibers on both substrates. The mineral-to-matrix ratios analyzed by Raman spectroscopy are unremarkable in the absence of TiO2. However, with addition of TiO2, the ratios are consistent with native bone on the hard and dentin on the soft substrates. This is further confirmed by RT-PCR, which showed upregulation of markers consistent with osteogenesis and odontogenesis, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available