| Literature DB >> 29642566 |
Luyuan Chen1, Satoshi Komasa2, Yoshiya Hashimoto3, Shigeki Hontsu4, Joji Okazaki5.
Abstract
To enhance biocompatibility, osteogenesis, and osseointeg<span class="Species">ration, we coated <span class="Chemical">titanium implants, by krypton fluoride (KrF) pulsed laser deposition, with a thin film of fluoridated hydroxyapatite (FHA). Coating was confirmed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and scanning probe microscopy (SPM), while physicochemical properties were evaluated by attenuated reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Calcium deposition, osteocalcin production, and expression of osteoblast genes were significantly higher in rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells seeded on FHA-coated titanium than in cells seeded on uncoated titanium. Implantation into rat femurs also showed that the FHA-coated material had superior osteoinductive and osseointegration activity in comparison with that of traditional implants, as assessed by microcomputed tomography and histology. Thus, titanium coated with FHA holds promise as a dental implant material.Entities:
Keywords: fluoridated hydroxyapatite; implant; osteogenic activity; pulsed laser deposition; rat femur model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29642566 PMCID: PMC5979563 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19041127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Gross appearance of Titanium (Ti) and fluoridated hydroxyapatite (FHA)-coated Ti (a) discs and (b) screws.
Figure 2Scanning electron micrographs of (a,b) Ti and (c,d) FHA-coated screws.
Figure 3Scanning probe micrographs of (a) Ti and (b) FHA-coated surfaces.
Roughness values of Ti and FHA implant materials.
| Device | Ra (nm) |
|---|---|
| Ti | 5.83 ± 0.98 |
| FHA | 24.48 ± 2.94 * |
* p < 0.05; Ra: roughness values.
Figure 4Fourier transform infrared spectra at (a) 1200–400 cm−1 and (b) 3600–3000 cm−1.
Figure 5Expression of (a) ALP, (b) RUNX2, and (c) BMP in cells seeded on Ti and FHA-coated discs. * p < 0.05.
Figure 6(a) Calcium deposition and (b) osteocalcin production in cells seeded on Ti and FHA-coated discs. * p < 0.05.
Figure 7Implantation into rat femurs. (a) Incision; (b) Drilling of a hole; (c) Placement of implant; (d) Closure.
Figure 8Transverse reconstructed microcomputed tomographs of (a,c) Ti and (b,d) FHA-coated implants after (a,b) 4 weeks and (c,d) 8 weeks.
Figure 9(a,e) Bone volume to total volume ratio (BV/TV), (b,f) mean trabecular number (Tb.N), (c,g) mean trabecular separation (Tb.Sp), and (d,h) mean trabecular thickness (Tb.Th) around implants after (a–d) 4 weeks (4 w) and (e–h) 8 weeks (8 w). * p < 0.05.
Figure 10Villanueva staining of bone tissues around (a) Ti and (b) FHA-coated implants.
Figure 11(a) Bone area ratio (BA) and (b) bone–implant contact (BIC) in Ti and FHA-coated implants. * p < 0.05.
Figure 12Fluorescent labeling of new bone and mineralization around (a) Ti and (b) FHA-coated implants.
Figure 13Fluorescently labeled bone area (LBA) after (a) 1 week, (b) 4 weeks, and (c) 8 weeks. * p < 0.05.