Medical Devices: Evidence and Research (Apr 2022)
Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro
Abstract
Michael Levin,1 Robert C Spiro,2 Himanshu Jain,3 Matthias M Falk4 1Department of Bioengineering, P.C. Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA; 2Research and Development, Aesculap Implant Systems, LLC, Breinigsville, PA, 18031, USA; 3Department of Materials Science & Engineering, P.C. Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA; 4Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USACorrespondence: Himanshu Jain; Matthias M Falk, Email [email protected]; [email protected]: Titanium is commonly used for implants because of its corrosion resistance and osseointegration capability. It is well known that surface topology affects the response of bone tissue towards implants. In vivo studies have shown that in weeks or months, bone tissue bonds more efficiently to titanium implants with rough surfaces compared to smooth surfaces. In addition, stimulating early endosseous integration increases the long-term stability of bone-implants and hence their clinical outcome. Here, we evaluated the response of human MG-63 osteoblast-like cells to flat and solid, compared to rough and porous surface topologies in vitro 1– 6 days post seeding. We compared the morphology, proliferation, and attachment of cells onto three smooth surfaces: tissue culture (TC) plastic or microscope cover glasses, machined polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), and machined solid titanium, to cells on a highly porous (average Ra 22.94 μm) plasma-sprayed titanium surface (composite Ti-PEEK spine implants).Methods: We used immuno-fluorescence (IF) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as well as Live/Dead and WST-1 cell proliferation assays.Results: SEM analyses confirmed the rough topology of the titanium implant surface, compared to the smooth surface of PEEK, solid titanium, TC plastic and cover glasses. In addition, SEM analyses revealed that MG-63 cells seeded onto smooth surfaces (solid titanium, PEEK) adopted a flat, planar morphology, while cells on the rough titanium surface adopted an elongated morphology with numerous filopodial and lamellipodial extensions interacting with the substrate. Finally, IF analyses of focal adhesions (vinculin, focal adhesion kinase), as well as proliferation assays indicate that MG-63 cells adhere less and proliferate at a slower rate on the rough than on a smooth titanium surface.Conclusion: These observations suggest that bone-forming osteoblasts adhere less strongly and proliferate slower on rough compared to smooth titanium surfaces, likely promoting cell differentiation, which is in agreement with other porous implant materials.Keywords: cell adhesion and proliferation, implant surface topology, MG-63 cells, polyether-ether-ketone, PEEK, porous titanium implants, Ti-PEEK
