4.8 Article

Dermal fibroblast and epidermal keratinocyte functionality on titania nanotube arrays

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 2686-2696

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.03.014

关键词

Transcutaneous implants; Titania nanotube arrays; Human dermal fibroblasts; Human epidermal keratinocytes; Cell differentiation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET 0827827]
  2. Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcutaneous implants that penetrate through the depth of the skin are used in numerous clinical applications, including prosthetics and dental implants. Favorable interactions between the implant surface and the respective skin layers are critical for the long-term success of transcutaneous implantable devices, hence, it is essential to understand the physiologic response elicited by skin-biomaterial interactions. Recent studies have shown that material surfaces that provide topographic cues at the nanoscale level may provide one possible solution to enhanced biomaterial integration, thus preventing biomaterial rejection. In this study titania nanotube arrays were fabricated using a simple anodization technique as potential interfaces for transcutaneous implantable devices. The in vitro functionality of human dermal fibroblasts and epidermal keratinocytes were evaluated on these nanotube arrays (diameter 70-90 nm, length 1-1.5 mu m). Cellular functionality in terms of adhesion, proliferation, orientation, viability, cytoskeletal organization, differentiation and morphology were investigated for up to 4 days in culture using fluorescence microscope imaging, a cell viability assay, indirect immunofluorescence and scanning electron microscopy. The results reported in this study indicate increased dermal fibroblast and decreased epidermal keratinocyte adhesion, proliferation and differentiation on titania nanotube arrays. (C) 2011 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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