| Literature DB >> 30634646 |
Ole Jung1, Ralf Smeets2,3, Philip Hartjen4, Reinhard Schnettler5, Frank Feyerabend6, Martin Klein7, Nils Wegner8, Frank Walther9, Dominic Stangier10, Anders Henningsen11, Carsten Rendenbach12,13, Max Heiland14, Mike Barbeck15,16, Alexander Kopp17.
Abstract
Magnesium (Mg)-based biomaterials are promising candidates for bone and tissue regeneration. Alloying and surface modifications provide effective strategies for optimizing and tailoring their degradation kinetics. Nevertheless, biocompatibility analyses of Mg-based materials are challenging due to its special degradation mechanism with continuous hydrogen release. In this context, the hydrogen release and the related (micro-) milieu conditions pretend to strictly follow in vitro standards based on ISO 10993-5/-12. Thus, special adaptions for the testing of Mg materials are necessary, which have been described in a previous study from our group. Based on these adaptions, further developments of a test procedure allowing rapid and effective in vitro cytocompatibility analyses of Mg-based materials based on ISO 10993-5/-12 are necessary. The following study introduces a new two-step test scheme for rapid and effective testing of Mg. Specimens with different surface characteristics were produced by means of plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) using silicate-based and phosphate-based electrolytes. The test samples were evaluated for corrosion behavior, cytocompatibility and their mechanical and osteogenic properties. Thereby, two PEO ceramics could be identified for further in vivo evaluations.Entities:
Keywords: ISO10993-5/-12; PEO; biocompatibility; degradation; implant; magnesium
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30634646 PMCID: PMC6359522 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20020255
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1SEM pictures of WE43 (A), four silicate based ceramized-variants of WE43 (B–E) and six phosphate based PEO test samples (F–L). White bar is 20 μm.
Figure 2(A) Corrosion currents of the variants after 0.5, 2, and 7 h after placing the variants into minimum essential medium (MEM). (B) Appearance of the variants after 0.5, 2, and 7 h corrosion. NA: not applicable.
Figure 3Chemical features of PEO variants. pH (A) and Osmolality (B) were measured in medium in which the variants were placed for 3 days. Column heights are means with error bars indicating standard deviations. NA: not applicable.
Figure 4Cytocompatibility of the plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) variants. (A) Cytotoxicity measured by a Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) assay; (B) viability measured by a Sodium 3,3′-[1(phenylamino)carbonyl]-3,4-tetrazolium]-3is(4-methoxy-6-nitro) Benzene Sulfonic acid Hydrate (XTT)-assay; (C) proliferation measured by a BrdU assay. Values are either normalized against positive controls (LDH) or negative control (XTT, BrdU). Means with error bars indicating standard deviations. The dotted line indicates thresholds which should not be exceeded (LDH) or fall below (XTT; BrdU).
Figure 5Attachment of cells on surfaces of the PEO variants. (A) Attachment, vitality and morphology of the cells. Green: vital cells; red: dead cells. Spindle shaped morphology indicates healthy cells with firm attachment. (B) Counted cells. Vital (green) and dead (red) cells were counted on the 100× magnification photos using the software ImageJ. Shown are mean and standard deviation from 3 experiments.
Figure 6Mechanical features of PEO variants. (A) Stiffness; (B) Penetration. The left six specimens are controls and references. Column heights are means with error bars indicating standard deviations. NR: not relevant. NA: not analyzed.
Figure 7Attachment (A) and osteogenic differentiation (B) of Human umbilical cord perivascular cells (HUCPV) on the PEO variants. Mineralized bone-like nodules were visualized at days 7, 14, and 21 by staining a bone component hydroxyapatite (blue) using an OsteoImage kit (Lonza).
Figure 8Schematic outline of the procedure for assessing the in vitro compatibility of Mg-based materials applied in this study.
Evaluation scheme of each magnesium test sample. X indicates favorable results for the individual test sample. After each step, X were summed to obtain an overall score. Cor: Corrosion current, Osm: Osmolality, Cytotox: cytotoxcicity, Prolifer: proliferation, LDS Ql/Qn: Live-dead cell count qualitative/quantitative, Micro: micro hardness, Scratch: scratch test, Oseto: osteogenic properties.
| Cor | pH | Osm | Cytotox | Viability | Prolifer | LDS Ql. | LDS Qn. | 1st Step | Micro | Scratch | Osteo | 2nd Step | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mg-WE43 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||
| WE43-PEO1 | X | 1 | |||||||||||
| WE43-PEO2 | X | 1 | |||||||||||
| WE43-PEO3 | X | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||||
| WE43-PEO4 | X | X | 1 | ||||||||||
| WE43-PEO5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| X | X |
| |
| WE43-PEO6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 | |||||
| WE43-PEO7 | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | |||||||
| WE43-PEO8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| X | 1 | |||
| WE43-PEO9 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| X | X |
| |
| WE43-PEO10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| X | 1 | ||
| WE43-PEO11 | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 |
Chemical composition of the electrolyte blends used to coat the surface of the Mg alloy WE43.
| Variant | Electrolytes |
|---|---|
| Untreated | Magnesium WE43 |
| Silicate-based | |
| PEO1 | Silicate + Potassium Hydroxide |
| PEO2 | Silicate + Potassium Hydroxide + Borate |
| PEO3 | Silicate + Potassium Hydroxide + Titanate |
| PEO4 | Silicate + Potassium Hydroxide + Borate + Titanate |
| Phosphate-based | |
| PEO5 | Phosphate + Potassium Hydroxide |
| PEO6 | Phosphate + Ammonium Hydroxide |
| PEO7 | Phosphate + Potassium Hydroxide + Aluminate |
| PEO8 | Phosphate + Ammonium Hydroxide + Urea |
| PEO9 | Phosphate + Ammonium Hydroxide + EDTA |
| PEO10 | Phosphate + Ammonium Hydroxide + Flouride + Urotropin |
| PEO11 | Phosphate + Ammonium Hydroxide + Fluoride + Borate + Urotropin |