Jefferson O Abaricia1, Arth H Shah1, Marissa N Ruzga2, Rene Olivares-Navarrete1. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Biomaterial implantation provokes an inflammatory response that controls integrative fate. M2 macrophages regulate the response to implants by resolving the inflammatory phase and recruiting progenitor cells to aid healing. We have previously shown that modified titanium (Ti) disks directly induce M2 macrophage polarization. The aim of this study was to examine macrophage response to commercially available Ti or Ti alloy implants with comparable roughness and varying hydrophilicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eleven commercially available Ti (A-F) or Ti alloy (G-K) dental implants were examined in this study. Surface topography, chemistry, and hydrophilicity were characterized for each implant. To compare the immune response in vitro, human monocyte-derived macrophages were seeded on implants and secreted pro- and anti-inflammatory proteins measured. To evaluate the inflammatory response in vivo, mice were subcutaneously instrumented with clinical implants, and implant adherent macrophage populations were characterized by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Macrophages on hydrophobic Implant C produced the highest level of pro-inflammatory proteins in vitro. In contrast, hydrophilic Implant E produced the second-highest pro-inflammatory response. Implants F and K, both hydrophilics, produced the highest anti-inflammatory protein secretions. Likewise, pro-inflammatory CD80hi macrophages predominated in vivo on implants C and E, and M2 CD206 + macrophages predominated on implants F and K. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that hydrophilicity alone is insufficient to predict the anti-inflammatory effect on macrophage polarization and that other properties-surface composition or topography-determine immune modulation. This in vivo model may be a useful screening method to compare the immunomodulatory response to clinical implants of disparate geometry or size.
OBJECTIVES: Biomaterial implantation provokes an inflammatory response that controls integrative fate. M2 macrophages regulate the response to implants by resolving the inflammatory phase and recruiting progenitor cells to aid healing. We have previously shown that modified titanium (Ti) disks directly induce M2 macrophage polarization. The aim of this study was to examine macrophage response to commercially available Ti or Ti alloy implants with comparable roughness and varying hydrophilicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eleven commercially available Ti (A-F) or Ti alloy (G-K) dental implants were examined in this study. Surface topography, chemistry, and hydrophilicity were characterized for each implant. To compare the immune response in vitro, human monocyte-derived macrophages were seeded on implants and secreted pro- and anti-inflammatory proteins measured. To evaluate the inflammatory response in vivo, mice were subcutaneously instrumented with clinical implants, and implant adherent macrophage populations were characterized by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Macrophages on hydrophobic Implant C produced the highest level of pro-inflammatory proteins in vitro. In contrast, hydrophilic Implant E produced the second-highest pro-inflammatory response. Implants F and K, both hydrophilics, produced the highest anti-inflammatory protein secretions. Likewise, pro-inflammatory CD80hi macrophages predominated in vivo on implants C and E, and M2 CD206 + macrophages predominated on implants F and K. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that hydrophilicity alone is insufficient to predict the anti-inflammatory effect on macrophage polarization and that other properties-surface composition or topography-determine immune modulation. This in vivo model may be a useful screening method to compare the immunomodulatory response to clinical implants of disparate geometry or size.
Authors: José López-López; Enric Jané-Salas; Jenifer Martín-González; Lizett Castellanos-Cosano; José María Llamas-Carreras; Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Juan José Segura-Egea Journal: J Endod Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Kelly M Hotchkiss; Nancy B Ayad; Sharon L Hyzy; Barbara D Boyan; Rene Olivares-Navarrete Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Rolando A Gittens; Lutz Scheideler; Frank Rupp; Sharon L Hyzy; Jürgen Geis-Gerstorfer; Zvi Schwartz; Barbara D Boyan Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Ralf Smeets; Bernd Stadlinger; Frank Schwarz; Benedicta Beck-Broichsitter; Ole Jung; Clarissa Precht; Frank Kloss; Alexander Gröbe; Max Heiland; Tobias Ebker Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Manuel M Romero-Ruiz; Francisco Javier Gil-Mur; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Pedro Lázaro-Calvo; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Ivan Ortiz-García; Alvaro Jiménez-Guerra; Loreto Monsalve-Guil; Fernando Muñoz-Guzón; Roman A Perez; F Javier Gil Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Jefferson O Abaricia; Alexander J Whitehead; Suraj Kandalam; Arth H Shah; Kelly M Hotchkiss; Lais Morandini; Rene Olivares-Navarrete Journal: Materialia (Oxf) Date: 2021-10-08