RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Affinity of Human Fetal Osteoblast to Laser-Modified Titanium Implant Fixtures
Lee Kian Khoo1, Sirichai Kiattavorncharoen1, Verasak Pairuchvej1, Nisanat Lakkhanachatpan2, Natthamet Wongsirichat1, Dutmanee Seriwatanachai2, *
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2020Volume: 14
First Page: 52
Last Page: 58
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-14-52
DOI: 10.2174/1874210602014010052
Article History:
Received Date: 05/08/2019Revision Received Date: 20/12/2019
Acceptance Date: 02/01/2020
Electronic publication date: 18/02/2020
Collection year: 2020
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Introduction:
Implant surface modification methods have recently involved laser treatment to achieve the desired implant surface characteristics. Meanwhile, surface modification could potentially introduce foreign elements to the implant surface during the manufacturing process.
Objectives:
The study aimed to investigate the surface chemistry and topography of commercially available laser-modified titanium implants, together with evaluating the cell morphology and cell adhesion of human fetal osteoblast (hFOB) seeded onto the same implants.
Method:
Six (6) samples of commercially available laser-modified titanium implants were investigated. These implants were manufactured by two different companies. Three (3) implants were made from commercially pure grade 4 Titanium (Brand X); and three were made from grade 5 Ti6Al4V (Brand Y). The surface topography of these implants was analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the surface chemistry was evaluated with electron dispersive x-ray spectroscopy(EDS). Human fetal osteoblasts were seeded onto the implant fixtures to investigate the biocompatibility and adhesion.
Results & Discussion:
Brand X displayed dark areas under SEM while it was rarely found on brand Y. These dark areas were consistent with their organic matter. The hFOB cell experiments revealed cell adhesion with filopodia on Brand X samples which is consistent with cell maturation. The cells on Brand Y were morphologically round and lacked projections, one sample was devoid of any noticeable cells under SEM. Cell adhesion was observed early at 48 hrs in laser-irradiated titanium fixtures from both the brands.
Conclusion:
The presence of organic impurities in Brand X should not be overlooked because disruption of the osseointegration process may occur due to the rejection of the biomaterial in an in-vivo model. Nevertheless, there was insufficient evidence to link implant failure directly with carbon contaminated implant surfaces. Further studies to determine the toxicity of Vanadium from Ti6Al4V in an in-vivo environment should indicate the reason for different cell maturation.
