Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:05:58.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhanced Attachment and Proliferation of Fibroblasts on Anodized 316L Stainless Steel with Nano-pit Arrays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2014

Siyu Ni ,
Linlin Sun ,
Batur Ercan ,
Luting Liu ,
Katherine Ziemer  and
Thomas J. Webster
Siyu Ni
Affiliation:
College of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Donghua University, Shanghai, 201620, China Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
Linlin Sun
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
Batur Ercan
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
Luting Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
Katherine Ziemer
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
Thomas J. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to prepare various sized nano-pits on 316 L stainless steel and examine their effects on the attachment and proliferation of fibroblasts. In this study, 316L stainless steel with tunable pit sizes (0, 25, 50, and 60 nm) were fabricated by an anodization procedure in an ethylene glycol electrolyte solution containing 5 vol.% perchloric acid. The surface morphology of 316L stainless steel were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The nano-pit arrays on all the 316L stainless steel samples were in a regular arrangement. The surface properties of the 316L stainless steel nano-pit surface showed improved wettability properties as compared to the untreated 316L stainless steel. The nano-pit surfaces with 50 nm and 60 nm diameter were rougher at the nanoscale than other samples. The attachment and proliferation of fibroblasts were investigated for up to 3 days in culture using MTT assays. Compared to unanodized (that is, nano-smooth) and smooth surfaces, 50 and 60 nm diameter nano-pit surfaces dramatically enhanced the initial fibroblast attachment and growth up to 3 days in culture. The results reported in this study showed that the 50 and 60 nm nano-pit surfaces promoted fibroblast adhesion and proliferation by increasing the surface roughness and adsorption of fibronectin. Such nano-pit surfaces can be designed to support fibroblast growth and be important for improving the use of 316L stainless steel for various implant applications (such as for improved skin healing for amputee devices or for percutaneous implants).

Keywords

adhesionnanostructurebiomaterial
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1626: Symposium K – Micro- and Nanoscale Processing of Materials for Biomedical Devices , 2014 , mrsf13-1626-k08-20
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Lu, T., Qiao, Y., and Liu, X. Y., Interface Focus 2, 325 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minagar, S., Berndt, C. C, Wang, J., Ivanova, E., and Wen, C., Acta Biomater. 8, 2875 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richert, L., Vetrone, F., Yi, J. H., Zalzal, S. F., Wuest, J. D., Rosei, F., and Nanci, A., Adv. Mater. 20, 1488 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Nardo, L., Raffaini, G., Ebramzadeh, E., and Ganazzoli, F., Int. J. Artif. Organs 35, 629 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, S. H., Son, S. J., and Min, J., Nanotechnology 21, 125104 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capellato, P., Smith, B. S., Popat, K. C., and Alves Claro, A. P. R., Mat. Sci. Eng. C-Mater. 32, 2060 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neupane, M. P., Park, ІIS., Bae, T. S., Yi, H. K., Watari, F., and Lee, M. H., Mater. Chem. Phys. 134, 536 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durmus, N. G., and Webster, T. J., Nanomedicine 7, 791 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zile, M. A., Puckett, S., and Webster, T. J., J Biomed Mater Res Part A 97A, 59 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpaslan, E., Eran, B., and Webster, T. J., International Journal of Nanomedicine 6, 219 (2011).Google Scholar
Brammer, K. S., Oh, S., Cobb, C. J., Bjursten, L. M., van de Heyde H, J. S., and Jin, S., Acta Biomater. 5, 3251 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. S., Yoriya, S., Johnson, T., and Popat, K. C., Acta Biomater. 7, 2686 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, H. A., Liang, J. Y., Hung, Y. C., Lee, C. H., Chiou, J. C., and Huang, G. S., Biomaterials 34, 841 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitragotri, S., and Lahann, J., Nat. Mater. 8, 15 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guida, L., Oliva, A., Basile, M. A., Giordano, M., Nastri, L., and Annunziata, M., J. Dent. 41, 900 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar