| Literature DB >> 28788564 |
Matthias J Frank1,2, Martin S Walter3,4, Marina Rubert5, Bernd Thiede6, Marta Monjo7,5, Janne E Reseland8, Håvard J Haugen9, Ståle Petter Lyngstadaas10.
Abstract
The idea of a bioactive surface coating that enhances bone healing and bone growth is a strong focus of on-going research for bone implant materials. Enamel matrix derivate (EMD) is well documented to support bone regeneration and activates growth of mesenchymal tissues. Thus, it is a prime candidate for coating of existing implant surfaces. The aim of this study was to show that cathodic polarization can be used for coating commercially available implant surfaces with an immobilized but functional and bio-available surface layer of EMD. After coating, XPS revealed EMD-related bindings on the surface while SIMS showed incorporation of EMD into the surface. The hydride layer of the original surface could be activated for coating in an integrated one-step process that did not require any pre-treatment of the surface. SEM images showed nano-spheres and nano-rods on coated surfaces that were EMD-related. Moreover, the surface roughness remained unchanged after coating, as it was shown by optical profilometry. The mass peaks observed in the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectroscopy (MALDI-TOF MS) analysis confirmed the integrity of EMD after coating. Assessment of the bioavailability suggested that the modified surfaces were active for osteoblast like MC3M3-E1 cells in showing enhanced Coll-1 gene expression and ALP activity.Entities:
Keywords: EMD; bioactive coating; coating technique; enamel matrix derivate; surface modification; titanium; titanium-zirconium
Year: 2014 PMID: 28788564 PMCID: PMC5453263 DOI: 10.3390/ma7032210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1.SIMS depth profiles of the 12C (A); 1H (B) and 18O (C) isotopes.
SIMS depth profile analysis parameters for the 1H and 12C isotope.
| Isotope | Sample | Total amount (c) | Maximum intensity (c/s) | Layer thickness (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1H | TiZr SBAE | 2.65 × 107 | 6.05 × 107 | 2.26 |
| 1H | TiZr EMD | 5.67 × 107 | 1.28 × 108 | 2.92 |
| 1H | Ti SBAE | 5.44 × 106 | 1.47 × 108 | 1.1 |
| 1H | Ti EMD | 2.10 × 107 | 1.07 × 108 | 1.3 |
| 12C | TiZr SBAE | 3.61× 104 | 2.42 × 105 | 0.06 |
| 12C | TiZr EMD | 2.76 × 105 | 5.94 × 106 | 0.75 |
| 12C | Ti SBAE | 1.53 × 105 | 1.29 × 106 | 0.03 |
| 12C | Ti EMD | 3.37 × 106 | 1.02 × 107 | 1.16 |
XPS surface elements distribution.
| Element | Pure EMD (%) | TiZr SBAE (%) | TiZr EMD (%) | Ti SBAE (%) | Ti EMD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O 1s | 24.69 | 53.79 | 19.58 | 54.24 | 23.64 |
| C 1s | 60.91 | 20.74 | 62.55 | 22.74 | 56.66 |
| F 1s | – | 0.78 | – | 1.29 | 0.87 |
| Ti 2p | – | 19.45 | 1.91 | 21.73 | 2.91 |
| N 1s | 13.90 | – | 12.63 | – | 8.64 |
| Cl 2p | – | 1.55 | 0.59 | – | 0.69 |
| Na KLL | – | 0.78 | 1.27 | – | 5.76 |
| Si 2p | 0.15 | – | 0.92 | – | 0.83 |
| S 2p | 0.36 | – | 0.17 | – | – |
| Zr 3d | – | 2.90 | 0.37 | – | – |
XPS specific bindings of the surface oxygen and carbon.
| Element | Assignment | Pure EMD | TiZr SBAE | TiZr EMD | Ti SBAE | Ti EMD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Position (eV) | Conc. (at%) | Position (eV) | Conc. (at%) | Position (eV) | Conc. (at%) | Position (eV) | Conc. (at%) | Position (eV) | Conc. (at%) | ||
| O 1s | Organic O | 531.16 | 80.62 | 531.11 | 35.35 | 531.44 | 85.00 | 531.19 | 35.71 | 531.43 | 89.04 |
| O 1s | TiO2 | – | – | 529.94 | 64.65 | 529.24 | 15.00 | 529.97 | 64.30 | 529.09 | 10.96 |
| C 1s | C–C, CH | 284.75 | 52.72 | 284.71 | 56.95 | 284.69 | 47.94 | 284.69 | 59.17 | 284.73 | 51.31 |
| C 1s | C=C | 287.92 | 20.81 | 288.63 | 10.35 | 287.83 | 20.94 | 288.81 | 14.38 | 288.05 | 25.65 |
| C 1s | C–O, C–N | 286.05 | 26.47 | 286.10 | 32.70 | 285.95 | 31.12 | 286.10 | 26.44 | 285.93 | 23.04 |
Figure 2.SEM images of (A,B) TiZr SBAE; (C,D) TiZr EMD; (E,F) Ti SBAE and (G,H) Ti EMD.
Mean surface topography parameters with standard deviation assessed by optical imaging profilometry. Only TiZr EMD showed a significant difference (* p < 0.05) for Sa compared to TiZr SBAE.
| Sample | Sa (μm) | Ssk | Sku | Sci | Sdr (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TiZr SBAE | 2.074 ± 0.08 | −0.142 ± 0.07 | 2.920 ± 0.14 | 1.530 ± 0.03 | 58.19 ± 2.14 |
| TiZr EMD | 1.904 ± 0.06 * | −0.146 ± 0.09 | 2.939 ± 0.05 | 1.528 ± 0.03 | 58.78 ± 5.06 |
| Ti SBAE | 1.861 ± 0.12 | −0.195 ± 0.35 | 3.800 ± 1.07 | 1.433 ± 0.09 | 70.51 ± 4.94 |
| Ti EMD | 1.816 ± 0.04 | −0.359 ± 0.13 | 3.641 ± 0.81 | 1.448 ± 0.05 | 72.51 ± 3.21 |
Figure 3.MALDI spectra of (A) pure EMD; (B) TiZr EMD and (C) Ti EMD. All graphs include an enlarged version of the region between 5000 and 5400 m/z.
Figure 4.MALDI-ISD of EMD revealed fragments with the sequence YEVLTPLKWYQNM corresponding to the amino acid stretch 33–45.
Figure 5.Coll-1 relative mRNA levels (A) and ALP activity for polarized only and EMD coated groups were displayed as box plots of the median values (Q2) with 5, 25 (Q1), 75 (Q3) and 95 percentiles (n = 6). Student’s t-test revealed significant (* p ≤ 0.05) differences in Coll-I relative mRNA levels between TiZr EMD and TiZr SBAE. ALP activity revealed significant differences between TiZr EMD and TiZr SBAE and between Ti EMD and Ti SBAE.