| Literature DB >> 20856840 |
Theresa Raimondo1, Sabrina Puckett, Thomas J Webster.
Abstract
Mostly due to desirable mechanical properties (such as high durability and low wear), certain synthetic polymers (such as polyethylene) and metals (such as titanium) have found numerous applications in the medical device arena from orthopedics to the vasculature, yet frequently, they do not proactively encourage desirable cell responses. In an effort to improve the efficacy of such traditional materials for various implant applications, this study used electron beam evaporation to create nanostructured surface features that mimic those of natural tissue on polyethylene and titanium. For other materials, it has been shown that the creation of nanorough surfaces increases surface energy leading to greater select protein (such as vitronectin and fibronectin) interactions to increase specific cell adhesion. Here, osteoblast (bone forming cells) and endothelial cell (cells that line the vasculature) adhesion was determined on nanostructured compared to conventional, nano-smooth polyethylene and titanium. Results demonstrated that nanorough surfaces created by electron beam evaporation increased the adhesion of both cells markedly better than conventional smooth surfaces. In summary, this study provided evidence that electron beam evaporation can modify implant surfaces (specifically, polyethylene and titanium) to have nanostructured surface features to improve osteoblast and endothelial cell adhesion. Since the adhesion of anchorage dependent cells (such as osteoblasts and endothelial cells) is a prerequisite for their long-term functions, this study suggests that electron beam evaporation should be further studied for improving materials for various biomedical applications.Entities:
Keywords: nanotechnology; orthopedics; osteoblasts; polyethylene; titanium; vascular
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20856840 PMCID: PMC2939710 DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S13047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nanomedicine ISSN: 1176-9114
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the electron beam evaporation process used in this study to create nanometer surface features on PE and Ti.
Figure 2Scanning electron microscopy images of (a) conventional Ti, (b) nanorough Ti, (c) conventional PE, and (d) nanorough PE. Scale bars in (a) and (b) are 200 nm while in (c) and (d) are 1 μm.
Figure 3Greater surface energy for the nanorough Ti and nanorough PE compared to conventional Ti and conventional PE, respectively. Data are mean ± SEM; n = 4. *P < 0.01 compared to conventional Ti; **P < 0.01 compared to conventional PE.
Nanorough Ti and nanorough PE are less hydrophobic than their conventional counterparts
| Surface type | Contact angle of DI water | Contact angle of glycerol | Contact angle of PEG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nanorough Ti | 59.3 ± 1.13 | 57.6 ± 0.89 | 28.3 ± 1.74 |
| Conventional Ti | 70.6 ± 1.58 | 69.3 ± 0.84 | 41.18 ± 1.20 |
| Nanorough PE | 55.08 ± 1.64 | 69.90 ± 1.52 | 18.80 ± 1.71 |
| Conventional PE | 95.60 ± 0.32 | 69.79 ± 1.18 | 41.40 ± 0.78 |
Figure 4Greater osteoblast adhesion on nanorough Ti and nanorough PE as compared to their conventional counterparts. Data are mean ± SEM; n = 3. *P < 0.05 compared to conventional Ti; **P < 0.01 compared to nanorough Ti; P < 0.01 compared to conventional PE; #P < 0.01 compared to conventional Ti. Culture time = 4 hrs.
Figure 5Greater endothelial cell adhesion on nanorough Ti and nanorough PE as compared to their conventional counterparts. Data are mean ± SEM; n = 3. *P < 0.01 compared to conventional Ti; **P < 0.01 compared to conventional PE. Culture time = 4 hrs.