| Literature DB >> 34149683 |
Robert P De Poi1, Michael Kowolik2, Yoshiki Oshida3, Karim El Kholy4.
Abstract
Cellular responses to implanted biomaterials are key to understanding osseointegration. The aim of this investigation was to determine the in vitro priming and activation of the respiratory burst activity of monocytes in response to surface-modified titanium. Human peripheral blood monocytes of healthy blood donors were separated, then incubated with surface-modified grade 2 commercially pure titanium (CPT) disks with a range of known surface energies and surface roughness for 30- or 60-min. Secondary stimulation by phorbol 12-myrisate 13-acetate (PMA) following the priming phase, and luminol-enhanced-chemiluminescence (LCL) was used to monitor oxygen-dependent activity. Comparison among groups was made by incubation time using one-way ANOVA. One sample from each group for each phase of the experiment was viewed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and qualitative comparisons made. The results indicate that titanium is capable of priming peripheral blood monocytes following 60-min incubation. In contrast, 30 min incubation time lead to reduced LCL on secondary stimulation as compared to cells alone. At both time intervals, the disk with the lowest surface energy produced significantly less LCL compared to other samples. SEM examination revealed differences in surface morphology at different time points but not between differently surface-modified disks. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the titanium surface characteristics influenced the monocyte activity, which may be important in regulating the healing response to these materials.Entities:
Keywords: chemiluminescence; dental implants; monocytes; oxidative response; surface energy; surface roughness; titanium; wettability
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149683 PMCID: PMC8206560 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.618002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
List of surface modification conditions of commercially pure titanium disks.
| Titanium Group | Surface modification |
|---|---|
| (1) Mechanical treatment group (control) | |
| 1 | As-polished with #800 grit SiC metallographic paper. |
| (2) Mechano-chemical group | |
| 2 | Sand-blasting (50 μm alumina particles) at 120 psi for 1 minute with a fixed distance (1 cm) between the sample of the surface and blasting tip, followed by chemical treatment in boiling HCl/H2SO4/H2O (20ml/20ml/260ml) for 3 hours. |
| (3) Oxidation treatment group | |
| 3 | In 70°C 5 M NaOH for 24 hours, followed by in-air oxidation at 600°C for 1 hour. |
| 6 | HF/HNO3/H2O (1/1/2 by fraction) for 10 seconds, followed by process (3). |
| (4) Chemical treatment group | |
| 4 | Immersed in boiling 3% H2O2 for 6 hours. |
| 5 | Boiling in 5% H2SO4 for 15 hours. |
All samples (all sides) prior to the treatments were mechanically polished under the same condition as control samples (group 1).
Relationship between surface roughness and contact angle on grade 2 commercially pure titanium using distilled water.
| Titanium Group | Ra (µm) | Rmax (µm) | Contact angle Water (°) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Std Dev) | (Std Dev) | (Std Dev) | |
| 1 | 0.57 | 3.41 | 60.19 |
| ( ± 0.25) | ( ± 2.05) | ( ± 5.06) | |
| 2 | 1.69 | 9.73 | 58.98 |
| ( ± 0.99) | ( ± 5.85) | ( ± 1.69) | |
| 3 | 1.52 | 7.52 | 16.88 |
| ( ± 1.21) | ( ± 6.39) | ( ± 1.67) | |
| 4 | 0.61 | 3.73 | 58.48 |
| ( ± 0.28) | ( ± 1.19) | ( ± 1.61) | |
| 5 | 2.15 | 14.14 | 72.99 |
| ( ± 0.75) | ( ± 5.94) | ( ± 2.40) | |
| 6 | 2.38 | 14.53 | 10.51 |
| ( ± 0.12) | ( ± 0.93) | ( ± 1.25) |
*All data from Lim (Lim YJ 2000).
Ra, Average roughness.
Rmax, Maximum roughness.
Figure 1Concentration curves for PMA and FMLP in the luminescence system, as indicated by the total chemiluminescence response of monocytes activated with PMA 10-4 M, PMA 10-5 M, or FMLP 10-6 M with luminol 10-6 M or lucigenin 10-4 M. (n=3) (Error bars=% covariance).
Protocol design for chemiluminescence assay with 30-minutes priming.
| Variables | Priming Phase | Activation Phase | Total CL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement Period | Measurement Period | Measurement Period | |
| Blank | 1 cuvette/replicate → | ||
| Cells Only | 3 reps → | ||
| CPT group 1 | 3 reps → | ||
| CPT group 2 | 3 reps → | ||
| CPT group 3 | 3 reps → | ||
| CPT group 4 | 3 reps → | ||
| CPT group 5 | 3 reps → | ||
| CPT group 6 | 3 reps → | ||
| 22 cuvettes/experiment |
Monocyte CL for run 1 and run 2. PMA 10-5 M, luminol 10-6 M, 60-minutes priming and 60-minutes post-activation.
| CPT Group | Run 1 | Run 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean monocyte CL | % Covariance | Mean monocyte CL | % Covariance | |
| (mV.min x 105) | (mV.min x 105) | |||
| Cells Only | 0.38 | 0.17 | ||
| 1 | 1.58 | 7.93 | 1.09 | 3.78 |
| 2 | 1.53 | 2.59 | 1.10 | 4.45 |
| 3 | 1.45 | 3.60 | 1.05 | 5.46 |
| 4 | 1.36 | 2.99 | 0.97 | 14.19 |
| 5 | 1.18 | 9.71 | 0.82 | 5.34 |
| 6 | 1.30 | 1.10 | 1.03 | 3.32 |
Monocyte CL for run 3 and run 4. PMA 10-5 M, luminol 10-6 M, 30-minutes priming and 90-minutes post-activation.
| CPT Group | Run 3 | Run 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean monocyte CL | % Covariance | Mean monocyte CL | % Covariance | |
| (mV.min x 105) | (mV.min x 105) | |||
| Blank Control | 0.044 | 0.042 | ||
| Cells Only | 2.84 | 0.382 | 1.061 | |
| 1 | 2.43 | 6.53 | 0.326 | 25.874 |
| 2 | 2.29 | 3.85 | 0.326 | 1.998 |
| 3 | 2.34 | 4.68 | 0.322 | 2.234 |
| 4 | 2.45 | 3.47 | 0.321 | 5.220 |
| 5 | 1.51 | 6.21 | 0.229 | 4.770 |
| 6 | 2.41 | 0.90 | 0.329 | 1.514 |
Summaries of proportional change of monocyte chemiluminescence by CPT groups, under 60- or 30-minutes incubation.
| CPT Group | 60-minutes Incubation | 30-minutes Incubation |
|---|---|---|
| Mean (Std. Dev) | Mean (Std. Dev) | |
| 1 | 4.29 (1.30) | -0.16 (0.05) |
| 2 | 4.26 (1.36) | -0.17 (0.04) |
| 3 | 4.01 (1.34) | -0.17 (0.04) |
| 4 | 3.70 (1.44) | -0.15 (0.04) |
| 5 | 2.98 (1.00)* | -0.43 (0.05)* |
| 6 | 3.76 (1.47) | -0.15 (0.01) |
*significant at P <0.05.
Figure 2Total chemiluminescence. Figure demonstrates the proportional change of mean monocyte chemiluminescence from cells only for 30-min or 60-min priming phase. Monocyte activation was with PMA stimulation at 10-5 M with luminol 10-6 M. CPT group 5 was significantly different to the other groups (P <0.001).
Figure 3Monocyte priming. SEM photomicrographs of monocytes incubated with surface-modified titanium prior to secondary stimulation with PMA. (A) 1250x Group 1 30-min incubation. (B) 5000x Group 1 60-min incubation. (C) 1250x Group 2 30-min incubation. (D) 5000x Group 2 60-min incubation. (E) 1250x Group 3 30-min incubation. (F) 5000x Group 3 60-min incubation. (G) 1250x Group 4 30-min incubation. (H) 1250x Group 5 30-min incubation. (I) 5000x Group 5 60-min incubation. (J) 1250x Group 6 30-min incubation. (K) 5000x Group 6 60-min incubation.
Figure 4Monocyte activation. SEM photomicrographs following 60-minutes incubation and immediately following stimulation with PMA. (A) 1250X magnification of Group 1. Marked flattening of cells and cell membrane spreading were observed. (B) 5000x magnification of Group 4. Marked ruffling of the monocyte cell membrane and pseudopodial extension was demonstrated. (C) 1250x magnification of Group 5.
Figure 5Monocyte apoptosis. SEM photomicrographs 60-min following secondary stimulation with PMA 10-5 M. (A) 5000x magnification of Group 1. The continued loss of surface features compared to earlier time periods is noted. (B) 1250x magnification of Group 4. Monocytes have lost the ruffled border with many cells showing signs of apoptosis. (C) 5000x magnification of Group 5. Loss of surface features and onset of apoptosis is evident.