Response of primary fibroblasts and osteoblasts to plasma treated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) surfaces
- 655 Downloads
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a synthetic polymer with suitable biomechanical and stable chemical properties, which make it attractive for use as an endoprothetic material and for ligamentous replacement. However, chemical surface inertness does not account for a good interfacial biocompatibility, and PEEK requires a surface modification prior to its application in vivo.
In the course of this experimental study we analyzed the influence of plasma treatment of PEEK surfaces on the cell proliferation and differentiation of primary fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Further we examined the possibility of inducing microstructured cell growth on a surface with plasma-induced chemical micropatterning.
We were able to demonstrate that the surface treatment of PEEK with a low-temperature plasma has significant effects on the proliferation of fibroblasts. Depending on the surface treatment, the proliferation rate can either be stimulated or suppressed. The behavior of the osteoblasts was examined by evaluating differentiation parameters.
By detection of alkaline phosphatase, collagen I, and mineralized extracellular matrix as parameters for osteoblastic differentiation, the examined materials showed results comparable to commercially available polymer cell culture materials such as tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS). Further microstructured cell growth was produced successfully on micropatterned PEEK foils, which could be a future tool for bioartificial systems applying the methods of tissue engineering.
These results show that chemically inert materials such as PEEK may be modified specifically through the methods of plasma technology in order to improve biocompatibility.
KeywordsAlkaline Phosphatase Tissue Engineering Surface Treatment Plasma Treatment Osteoblastic Differentiation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.T. A. HORBETT, in “Proteins at Interfaces,” edited by T. A. Horbett and T. A. Brash (American Chemical Society, Washington DC, 1987).Google Scholar
- 2.B. D. RATNER, in “Comprehensive Polymer Science,” edited by G. Allen and J. C. Bevington (Pergamon Press, New York, 1989) p. 201.Google Scholar
- 4.B. D. RATNER, in “Surface Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials,” edited by B. D. Ratner and D. G. Castner (Plenum Press, New York, 1997) p. 35.Google Scholar
- 5.A. BRUNHOLD, F. KLEINERT, R. SCHNABEL and S. MARINOW, Lackiertechnik 51 (1997) 37.Google Scholar
- 6.D. KLEE and H. HÖCKER, Spektrum der Wissenschaft 6 (1995) 90.Google Scholar
- 7.R. D’AGOSTINO, Academic Press, 1990.Google Scholar
- 8.D. M. MANOS and D. L. FLAMM, Academic Press, 1986.Google Scholar
- 11.J. A. BRYDSON (ed.) “Aromatic Polyetherketones” Butterworths London, 1989).Google Scholar
- 12.C. P. SMITH, Swiss Plastics 3 (1981) 37.Google Scholar
- 13.M. DAUNER, H. PLANCK and H. J. BRÜNING, Hefte zur Zeitschrift der Unfallchirurg 234 (1994) 25.Google Scholar
- 18.K. SCHRÖDER, D. KELLER, A. MEYER-PLATH, U. MÜLLER and A. OHL, in “Materials for Medical Engineering”, edited by H. Stallforth and P. Revell (Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 2000) p. 161.Google Scholar
- 29.C. HENDRICH, U. NOTH, U. STAHL, F. MERKLEIN, C. P. RADER, N. SCHUTZE, R. THULL, R. S. TUAN and J. EULERT, Clin. Orthop. (2002) 278.Google Scholar
- 32.J. MEYER, B. WIES, M. KANTLEHNER and H. KESSLER, in “Zelluläre Interaktion mit Biomaterialien,” edited by N. M. Meenen, A. Katzer and J. M. Rueger Berlin (Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2000) p. 33.Google Scholar