| Literature DB >> 28974670 |
Xiaochong Jian1, Wenxiu Huang2, Dong Wu2, Dongdong You2, Zhaonan Lin1, Jiang Chen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surface characters of culture plates affect cellular behaviors such as cellular alignment and elongaEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28974670 PMCID: PMC5637573 DOI: 10.12659/msm.903883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Roughness of titanium surfaces (n=5).
| Waterproof abrasive paper | Sa (μm) |
|---|---|
| 600# | 0.331±0.022 |
| 800# | 0.283±0.046 |
| 1000# | 0.218±0.053 |
| 1500# | 0.178±0.017 |
Designed and measured actual parameters of microgrooved titanium surfaces.
| Designed | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| Groove width (μm) | 35.00 | 36.67 |
| Groove depth (μm) | 15.00 | 14.52 |
| Ridge width (μm) | 10.00 | 9.43 |
Figure 1Surface texture dimensions of titanium plates observed by 3D laser scanning microscope. (A) 3D laser scanning microscopic observation of the plan of the micro-grooved titanium plate (1000×); (B) 3D laser scanning microscopic observation of the 3D figure of the micro-grooved titanium plate (1000×).
Figure 2EDS examination of the titanium plate surface.
Figure 3Surface texture dimensions of titanium plates observed by 3D laser scanning microscope. 3D laser scanning microscopic observation of the plan of the microgrooved titanium plate (1000×).
Effects of sinalization on the percentage of element C, O, N, Ti and Si of titanium surfaces.
| Sample | %C | %O | %Ti | %N | %Si |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ti | 32.68 | 51.38 | 12.16 | 3.78 | |
| Ti+NaOH | 22.51 | 54.42 | 21.99 | 1.08 | |
| Ti+NaOH+APTES | 47.35 | 39.35 | 9.97 | 8.79 | 4.54 |
| Ti+NaOH+APTES+FN | 49.02 | 27.40 | 7.41 | 15.19 | 0.98 |
Figure 4The characteristics of different titanium surfaces. (A–F) SEM observation of smoothed titanium (S) and micro-grooved titanium (G) surfaces at 1000×, with the bar length corresponding to 100 μm. (A) Smoothed titanium surface; (B) Smoothed titanium surface + NaOH; (C) Smoothed titanium surface + NaOH+(3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (APTES); (D) Micro-grooved titanium surface; (E) Micro-grooved titanium surface + NaOH; (F) Micro-grooved titanium surface + NaOH + APTES. (G, H) SEM observation of micro-grooved titanium surface subject to alkali (G, titanium + NaOH) and silanization (H, titanium + NaOH+ APTES) treatment at 50 000×, with the scale bar length corresponding to 3 μm.
Roughness and water contact angel of titanium surfaces (n=5).
| Sa | Water contact angel (θc) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| S | Ti | 0.178±0.006 | 60.71±3.87 |
| Ti+NaOH | 0.183±0.005 | 27.82±1.43 | |
| Ti+NaOH+APTES | 0.047±0.003 | 94.92±4.31 | |
| Ti+NaOH+APTES+FN | 0.049±0.002 | 83.97±4.18 | |
| G | Ti | 1.086±0.017 | 40.92±2.64 |
| Ti+NaOH | 1.095±0.015 | 18.04±1.57 | |
| Ti+NaOH+APTES | 1.042±0.019 | 91.24±4.94 | |
| Ti+NaOH+APTES+FN | 1.081±0.025 | 74.73±4.82 |
Sa – average roughness values; Ti – titanium; APTES – (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane; FN – fibronectin.
Figure 5Dose-dependent FN conjugation with titanium plates.
Figure 6Earlier cell adhesion of the different titanium plates. # P<0.05, ## P<0.01 G group compared with S group, ** P<0.01 compared with S+FN group S group, && P<0.01 G+FN group compared with S group.
Figure 7Cell adhesion strength of the different titanium plates. # P<0.05, ## P<0.01 G group compared with S group, ** P<0.01 S+FN group compared with S group, & P<0.05, && P<0.01 G+FN group compared with S group.
Figure 8Morphology of HGFs on different titanium plates (×1000).
Figure 9Proliferation of HGFs on different titanium plates. ## P<0.01 G group compared with S group, ** P<0.01 S+FN group compared with S group, && P<0.01 G+FN group compared with S group.
Figure 10Immunofluorescence staining of HGFs on different titanium plates. The green dot denotes the expression of vinculin protein, the red shows rhodanine-stained cytoskeleton, and the blue shows DAPI-stained nuclei (200×).
Figure 11Bacterial adhesion with different titanium plates. ## P<0.01 G group compared with S group, && P<0.01 G+FN group compared with S group.