4.5 Article

The role of nanostructures and hydrophilicity in osseointegration: In-vitro protein-adsorption and blood-interaction studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 103, 期 8, 页码 2661-2672

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35401

关键词

titanium implant surfaces; nanostructures; hydrophilicity; protein adsorption; blood-material interaction

资金

  1. Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation CTI [13747.1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein adsorption and blood coagulation play important roles in the early stages of osseointegration and are strongly influenced by surface properties. We present a systematic investigation of the influence of different surface properties on the adsorption of the blood proteins fibrinogen and fibronectin and the degree of early blood coagulation. Experiments on custom-made and commercially available, microroughened hydrophobic titanium (Ti) surfaces (Ti SLA-H-phob), hydrophilic (H-phil) microroughened Ti surfaces with nanostructures (Ti SLActive-HphilNS), and on bimetallic Ti zirconium alloy (TiZr, Roxolid (R)) samples were performed, to study the biological response in relation to the surface wettability and the presence of nanostructures (NS). Protein adsorption on the different substrates showed a highly significant effect of surface NS. Hydrophilicity alone did not significantly enhance protein adsorption. Overall, the combination of NS and hydrophilicity led to the highest adsorption levels; independent of whether Ti or TiZr were used. Hydrophilicity induced a strong effect on blood coagulation, whereas the effect of NS alone was weak. The combination of both surface characteristics led to early and most pronounced blood-coagulation. Therefore, nanostructured, hydrophilic Ti and TiZr surfaces may perform better in terms of osseointegration due to continuous protein adsorption and the formation of a layer of blood components on the implant surface. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 103A: 2661-2672, 2015.

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

4.5
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