Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:00:24.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Surface Texturing on Cell Adhesion for Artificial Joints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

B. Shi
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
A. Fairchild
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
Z. Kleine
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
T. Kuhn
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
H. Liang*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

One of the major issues of joint implants is their loss (detachment) and subsequent failure after a limited number of years in application. Understanding and improving cell adhesion to implanting materials to extend lifespan, lubrication, and self-regeneration properties are therefore substantially important. In this research, we investigate effects of surface properties, such as wettabilty and texture on cell culture for the purpose of biotribological applications. Materials used are polyurethane, polyvinyl alcohol, and glass. Surface analysis indicates that surface structures have profound impact on cells growth.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Spector, M.; Orth. Clin. N. Am., 1992, 23, 2, April: p211217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Wang, A. et al. ; New Directions in Tribology, Edi. Hutchings, I.M., World Tribology Congress, London, 1997: p443458.Google Scholar
3 Fujiu, T. and Ogion, M.; J. Biomed Matls. Res., 1984; 18(7): p845859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Daculsi, G. et al. ; J. Biomed Matls. Res., 1989 23, p.883–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Tracy, B.M., Doremus, R.H.; J. Biomed. Matls. Res., 1984; 18: p719726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Hench, L.L.; J. Am. Cer. Soc., 1998; 81, p17051728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Wen, J. et al. ; Biomatls., 2000; 21, p13391343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Dong, Z.L. et al. ; Biomatls., 2003; 24, p97105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Buckley, C.A. et al. Trans. Soc. Biomater., Implant Retrieval Symposium, 1992, 15 : p.58.Google Scholar
10 Collier, J. P., Surprenant, V.A., Jensen, R.E. and Mayor, M.B.; Clin. Orthop., 1991; 271: p305312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Zhang, C., Leng, Y. and Chen, J.; Biomatls., 2001, 22: p13571363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Yang, Y.C. and Chang, E.; Biomatls., 2001, 22: p18271836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Thomas, M.B. et al. ; J. Matls. Sci., 1980, 15: p891894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 deWith, G. et al. J. Matls. Sci., 1981, 16: p15921598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Buser, D. et al. ; J. Biomed. Matls. Res. 1991, 25: p889902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Jansen, J.A., van de Waerden, J.P.C.M., Wolke, J.G.C., de Groot, K.; J. Biomed. Matls. Res., 1991, 25: p973989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Zingg, W., Neumann, A.W., Strong, A.B., Hum, O.S., and Absolom, D.R., “Effect of Surface Roughness on Platelet Adhesion under Static and Under Flow Conditions,” Can. J. Surg. 25, p.16, 1982.Google ScholarPubMed
18 Campbell, C.E. and Recum, A.F., “Microtopography and Soft Tissue Response,” J. Invest. Surg. 2, p.5174, 1989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Brunette, D.M., “Spreading and Orientation of Epithelial Cells on Grooved Substrata.” Exp. Cell Res. 167, p.203217, 1986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Brunette, D.M., “Fibroblasts on Micromachined Substrata Orient Hierarchically to Grooves of Different Dimensions.” Exp. Cell. Res. 16, p.1126, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar