4.7 Article

3D-printed surface promoting osteogenic differentiation and angiogenetic factor expression of BMSCs on Ti6Al4V implants and early osseointegration in vivo

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 336-343

出版社

JOURNAL MATER SCI TECHNOL
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2018.09.063

关键词

Three-dimensional printing; Titanium alloy; BMSCs; Osteogenesis; Osseointegration

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFB1104100]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371129, 81670973]
  3. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai [17410710500, 16DZ0503800, 17510710800]
  4. Fund of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning [201540369]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three-dimensional-printed (3D-P) titanium implants display many advantages, such as design flexibility, higher efficiency, the capability to easily construct complex or customized structures, etc., and is believed to potentially replace traditional implants. However, the biological performance of the 3D-P titanium surface has not been investigated systematically. Herein, we analyzed the surface characteristics of 3D-P Ti6Al4V implants and evaluated the biological responses of bone marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BMSCs) to the 3D-P surface in vitro. Moreover, after implantation into the rat femoral condyle for 3 and 6 weeks, the osseointegration performance was evaluated. The results showed the 3D-P Ti6Al4V implant presented distinct fluctuant macroscale rough surface and relatively better hydrophilicity which enhanced the adhesion, proliferation, osteogenic differentiation and angiogenetic factor expression of BMSCs. Moreover, the in vivo osseointegration performance was also better than that of the control group at the early stage. The present study suggested the 3D-P titanium alloy is a promising candidate to be used as implant material. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The editorial office of Journal of Materials Science & Technology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据