Osseointegration mechanisms: a proteomic approach
- 106 Downloads
The prime objectives in the development of biomaterials for dental applications are to improve the quality of osseointegration and to short the time needed to achieve it. Design of implants nowadays involves changes in the surface characteristics to obtain a good cellular response. Incorporating osteoinductive elements is one way to achieve the best regeneration possible post-implantation. This study examined the osteointegrative potential of two distinct biomaterials: sandblasted acid-etched titanium and a silica sol–gel hybrid coating, 70% MTMOS-30% TEOS. In vitro, in vivo, and proteomic characterisations of the two materials were conducted. Enhanced expression levels of ALP and IL-6 in the MC3T3-E1 cells cultured with coated discs, suggest that growing cells on such surfaces may increase mineralisation levels. 70M30T-coated implants showed improved bone growth in vivo compared to uncoated titanium. Complete osseointegration was achieved on both. However, coated implants displayed osteoinductive properties, while uncoated implants demonstrated osteoconductive characteristics. Coagulation-related proteins attached predominantly to SAE-Ti surface. Surface properties of the material might drive the regenerative process of the affected tissue. Analysis of the proteins on the coated dental implant showed that few proteins specifically attached to its surface, possibly indicating that its osteoinductive properties depend on the silicon delivery from the implant.
KeywordsOsteogenesis Bone regeneration Coagulation Osteoinduction Biointerfaces
This work was supported by MAT2017-86043-R (MINECO); Universidad Jaume I under UJI-B2017-37 and Grant Predoc/2014/25; University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) through UFI11/56; Basque Government through IT611-13 and Grant Predoc/2016/1/0141, and Generalitat Valenciana under Grant Grisolia/2014/016. Authors would like to thank Antonio Coso and Jaime Franco (GMI-Ilerimplant) for their inestimable contribution to this study, and Raquel Oliver, José Ortega (UJI) and Iraide Escobes (CIC bioGUNE) for their valuable technical assistance.
- 1.Khan WS, Rayan F, Dhinsa BS, Marsh D (2012) An osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic tissue-engineered product for trauma and orthopaedic surgery: how far are we? Stem Cells Int. Article ID 236231, 7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/236231
- 5.Wilson-Hench J (1987) Osteoinduction. In: Williams DF (ed) Progress in biomedical engineering, Defin Biomater, vol 4. Elsevier, p 29Google Scholar
- 7.Eckert SE, Koka S (2006) Osseointegrated dental implants. In: Johnson FE, Virgo KS, Lairmore TC, Audisio RA (eds) The bionic human, Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-975-2_45
- 13.Schmidt DR, Waldeck H, Kao WJ (2009) Protein adsorption to biomaterials. In: Puleo DA, Bizios R (eds) Biological interactions on materials surfaces: understanding and controlling protein, cell, and tissue, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98161-1
- 17.Ajai S, Sabir A (2013) Evaluation of serum alkaline phosphatase as a biomarker of healing process progression of simple diaphyseal fractures in adult patients. Int Res J Biol Sci Int Res J Biol Sci 2:2278–3202Google Scholar
- 31.Rivera-Chacon DM, Alvarado-Velez M, Acevedo-Morantes CY et al (2013) Fibronectin and vitronectin promote human fetal osteoblast cell attachment and proliferation on nanoporous titanium surfaces. J Biomed Nanotechnol 9:1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1166/jbn.2013.1601 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Ru D-W, Yan Y-F, Li B et al (2016) Tetranectin knock-out mice exhibit features of kyphosis and osteoporosis. Fudan Univ J Med Sci 43:159. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-8467.2016.02.006 Google Scholar