Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35502265›Full record

ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro.

Michael Levin, Robert C Spiro, Himanshu Jain, Matthias M Falk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparative studyWorld journal of orthopedics · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael LevinDepartment of Bioengineering, P.C. Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA.
Robert C SpiroResearch and Development, Aesculap Implant Systems, LLC, Breinigsville, PA, 18031, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5388-3033
Himanshu JainDepartment of Materials Science & Engineering, P.C. Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA.
Matthias M FalkDepartment of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA.
Lehigh University · USAesculap (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Titanium is commonly used for implants because of its corrosion resistance and osseointegration capability. It is well known that surface topology affects the response of bone tissue towards implants. In vivo studies have shown that in weeks or months, bone tissue bonds more efficiently to titanium implants with rough surfaces compared to smooth surfaces. In addition, stimulating early endosseous integration increases the long-term stability of bone-implants and hence their clinical outcome. Here, we evaluated the response of human MG-63 osteoblast-like cells to flat and solid, compared to rough and porous surface topologies in vitro 1-6 days post seeding. We compared the morphology, proliferation, and attachment of cells onto three smooth surfaces: tissue culture (TC) plastic or microscope cover glasses, machined polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), and machined solid titanium, to cells on a highly porous (average R Methods: We used immuno-fluorescence (IF) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as well as Live/Dead and WST-1 cell proliferation assays. Results: SEM analyses confirmed the rough topology of the titanium implant surface, compared to the smooth surface of PEEK, solid titanium, TC plastic and cover glasses. In addition, SEM analyses revealed that MG-63 cells seeded onto smooth surfaces (solid titanium, PEEK) adopted a flat, planar morphology, while cells on the rough titanium surface adopted an elongated morphology with numerous filopodial and lamellipodial extensions interacting with the substrate. Finally, IF analyses of focal adhesions (vinculin, focal adhesion kinase), as well as proliferation assays indicate that MG-63 cells adhere less and proliferate at a slower rate on the rough than on a smooth titanium surface. Conclusion: These observations suggest that bone-forming osteoblasts adhere less strongly and proliferate slower on rough compared to smooth titanium surfaces, likely promoting cell differentiation, which is in agreement with other porous implant materials.

Indexed as

cell adhesion and proliferationimplant surface topologyMG-63 cellsPEEKpolyether-ether-ketoneporous titanium implantsTi-PEEK

Identifiers

PMID35502265
PMCPMC9056099
OpenAlexW4225015094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.