Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:46:19.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Normal and Shear Strength of the Cell-Implant Interface: Accelerated Negative Buoyancy as a Method of Cell Adhesion Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Helen J Griffiths ,
Charles Andrew Collier  and
T William Clyne
Helen J Griffiths
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Cambridge, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Charles Andrew Collier
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Cambridge, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Cambridge, United Kingdom
T William Clyne
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Cambridge, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Get access

Abstract

The strength of adhesion at the cell-substrate interface is an important parameter in the design of many prosthetic implant material surfaces, due to the desire to create and maintain a strong implant-tissue bond. This study focuses on the mechanical strength of the interface and the ease of cell removal from ceramic coatings using normal and shear forces, but also looks at cell proliferation rates on the same series of surfaces. This systematic study of cell proliferation and adhesion has been carried out on a series of oxide coated Ti6Al4V based substrates with a range of surface morphologies and chemistries. Oxide coatings were formed using Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (the PEO process). Cells were seeded at a low concentration onto substrates and proliferation monitored for up to three weeks. The same cell concentrations were seeded on samples for adhesion testing. These were cultured for a few days to ensure well established adhesion of viable cells. The normal and shear strength of osteoblasts (bone cells) and chondrocytes (cartilage cells) adhered to these substrates was measured using accelerated negative buoyancy within an ultracentrifuge. The variation in proliferation rates on, and adhesive strengths to, the range of coatings, is discussed and related to morphological and chemical differences in the coatings. A comparison is made between the normal and shear strengths of the cell-coating bonds and the differences between the behaviour of the two cell types discussed.

Keywords

adhesionbiomedicalcoating
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1191: Symposium OO – Materials and Strategies for Lab-on-a-Chip–Biological Analysis, Cell-Material Interfaces and Fluidic Assembly of Nanostructures , 2009 , 1191-OO05-08
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

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] Ratner, B. D. Hoffman, A.S., Schoen, F.J., Lemons, J.E., “Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine,” 2nd Edition ed: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004.Google Scholar
[2] Li, L. H. Kim, H. W. Lee, S. H. Kong, Y. M. and Kim, H. E. “Biocompatibility of titanium implants modified by microarc oxidation and hydroxyapatite coating,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, vol. A 73A, pp. 48–54, 2005.10.1002/jbm.a.30244Google Scholar
[3] Liu, F. Wang, F. Shimizu, T. Igarashi, K. and Zhao, L. “Formation of hydroxyapatite on Ti-6Al-4V alloy by microarc oxidation and hydrothermal treatment,” Surface & Coatings Technology, vol. 199, pp. 220–224, 2005.10.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.10.146Google Scholar
[4] Lee, S. H. Kim, H. W. Lee, E. J. Li, L. F. and Kim, H. E. “Hydroxyapatite-TiO2 hybrid coating on Ti implants,” Journal of Biomaterials Applications, vol. 20, pp. 195–208, 2006.10.1177/0885328206050518Google Scholar
[5] Li, L. H. Kong, Y. M. Kim, H. W. Kim, Y. W. Kim, H. E. Heo, S. J. and Koak, J. Y. “Improved biological performance of Ti implants due to surface modification by microarc oxidation,” Biomaterials, vol. 25, pp. 2867–2875, 2004.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.048Google Scholar
[6] Wei, D. Zhou, Y. Jia, D. and Wang, Y. “Characteristic and in vitro bioactivity of a microarc-oxidized TiO2-based coating after chemical treatment,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 3, pp. 817–827, 2007.10.1016/j.actbio.2007.03.001Google Scholar
[7] Schreckenbach, J. P. Marx, G. Schlottig, F. Textor, M. and Spencer, N. D. “Characterization of anodic spark-converted titanium surfaces for biomedical applications,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, vol. 10, pp. 453–457, 1999.Google Scholar
[8] Chen, J.Z., Shi, Y.L., Wang, L. Yan, F.Y., and Zhang, F.Q., “Preparation and properties of hydroxyapatite-containing titania coating by micro-arc oxidation,” Materials Letters, vol. 60, pp. 2538–2543, 2006.10.1016/j.matlet.2006.01.035Google Scholar
[9] Ni, J.H., Shi, Y.L., Yan, F.Y., Chen, J.Z., and Wang, L. “Preparation of hydroxyapatitecontaining titania coating on titanium substrate by micro-arc oxidation,” Materials Research Bulletin, vol. 43, pp. 45–53, 2008.10.1016/j.materresbull.2007.02.019Google Scholar
[10] Curran, J. A. and Clyne, T. W. “Porosity in Plasma Electrolytic Oxide Coatings,” Acta Materialia, vol. 54, pp. 1985–1993, 2006.10.1016/j.actamat.2005.12.029Google Scholar
[11] Griffiths, H. J. Harvey, J. G. Dean, J. Curran, J. A. Markaki, A. E. and Clyne, T. W. “Characterisation of Cell Adhesion to Substrate Materials and the Resistance to Enzymatic and Mechanical Cell-Removal,” MRS Proceedings, vol. 1097E, pp. GG03–05, 2008.Google Scholar
[12] “alamarBlueTM Technical Datasheet,” AbD Serotec Ltd, 2002.Google Scholar