Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:50:36.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Directed Osteoblast Adhesion at Particle Boundaries: Promises for Nanophase Metals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Venu Perla
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University, 500 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022, U.S.A
Jeremiah U. Ejiofor
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University, 500 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022, U.S.A
Thomas J. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University, 500 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022, U.S.A School of Materials Engineering, Purdue University, 500 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022, U.S.A
Get access

Abstract

In spite of under performance, metals and metal alloys are currently being used in orthopedic implantable devices. Poor osseointegration, severe stress shielding, bone cell death and eventual necrotic bone resulting from the generation of wear debris are known to be some of the reasons responsible for their under performance. In addition, metallic corrosion products may also initiate cancer. Steady growth in the use of metals in orthopedic applications inspired researchers to deal with these problems in an integrated way. When conventional Ti, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo surfaces were modified to the nano-range, this study showed increased percentages of osteoblast (bone forming cell) adhesion on nanophase metals. Moreover, larger amounts of osteoblast adhesion was related to quantitative increases in the total length of particle boundaries per unit area and the total number of pores between surface particles per unit area, and the surface particle boundary index (SPBI) of nanophase metals. Additionally, we have developed a novel anticarcinogenic orthopedic metalloid, selenium (Se). When micron range surface particles of Se compacts were modified to the nano-range by chemical etching, we found positive relationships between directed osteoblast adhesion and various particle boundary parameters mentioned above under in vitro conditions. These results provided the first evidence to utilize nanosurface Se as an anticarcinogenic and bio-inspiring material for future applications in orthopedic metallic devices.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Silver, F.H., “Scope and markets for medical implants,” Biomaterials, medical devices and tissue engineering – an integrated approach (Chapman & Hall, London, 1994) pp. 145.Google Scholar
2. Buser, D., Nydegger, T., Oxland, T., Cochran, D.L., Schenk, R.K., Hirt, H.P., Snetivy, D., Nolte, L.P., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 45, 75 (1999).3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Webster, T.J., “Nanophase ceramics: the future of orthopedic and dental implant material,” Nanostructured materials, ed. Ying, J.Y. (Academy Press, New York, 2001) pp. 125166.Google Scholar
4. Kaplan, F.S., Hayes, W.C., Keaveny, T.M., Boskey, A., Einhorn, T.A., Iannotti, J.P., “Biomaterials,” Orthopedic basic science, ed. Simon, S.P. (American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Columbus, 1994) pp. 460478.Google Scholar
5. Kaplan, F.S., Lee, W.C., Keaveny, T.M., Boskey, A., Einhorn, T.A., Iannotti, J.P., “Form and function of bone,” Orthopedic basic science, ed. Simon, S.P. (American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Columbus, 1994) pp. 127185.Google Scholar
6. McDowell, L.R., Minerals in animal and human nutrition (Elsevier, 2003) pp. 1644.Google Scholar
7. Shahgaldi, B.F., Heatley, F.W., Dewar, A. and Corrin, B., J. Bone Joint Surg.-Br. Vol. 77, 962 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Dorfman, H.D. and Czerniak, B., “Precancerous conditions,” Bone tumors (Mosby, St. Louis, 1998) pp. 11951234.Google Scholar
9. Reilly, C., “Introduction,” Selenium in food and health (Blackie Academic & Professional, London, 1996) pp. 124.Google Scholar
10. Navarro-Alarcon, M. and Lopez-Martinez, M.C., The Science of the Total Environment 249, 347 (2000).Google Scholar
11. Chariot, P. and Bignani, O., Muscle Nerve 27, 662 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Barceloux, D.G. Jr., Toxicology-Clinical Toxicology 37, 145 (1999).Google Scholar
13. Webster, T.J. and Ejiofor, J.U., Biomaterials 25, 4731 (2004).Google Scholar
14. Oremland, R.S., Herbel, M.J., Blum, J.S., Langley, S., Beveridge, T.J., Ajayan, P.M., Sutto, T., Ellis, A.V. and Curran, S., Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 52 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Webster, T.J., Ergun, C., Doremus, R.H., Siegel, R.W. and Bizios, R., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 51, 475 (2000).3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Webster, T.J., Schadler, L.S., Siegel, R.W. and Bizios, R., Tissue Eng. 7, 291 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar