The addition of porosity to the traditionally used solid titanium metal implants has been suggested to more closely mimic the natural mechanical properties of bone and increase osseointegration in dental and orthopedic implants. The objective of this study was to evaluate cellular response to three-dimensional (3D) porous Ti-6Al-4V constructs fabricated by additive manufacturing using laser sintering with low porosity (LP), medium porosity (MP), and high porosity (HP) with low resolution (LR) and high resolution (HR) based on a computed tomography scan of human trabecular bone. After surface processing, construct porosity ranged from 41.0% to 76.1%, but all possessed micro-/nanoscale surface roughness and similar surface chemistry containing mostly Ti, O, and C. Biological responses (osteoblast differentiation, maturation, and local factor production) by MG63 osteoblast-like cells and normal human osteoblasts favored 3D than two-dimensional (2D) solid constructs. First, MG63 cells were used to assess differences in cell response to 2D compared to LR and HR porous 3D constructs. MG63 cells were sensitive to porosity resolution and exhibited increased osteocalcin (OCN), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), osteoprotegerin (OPG), and bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) on HR 3D constructs than on 2D and LR 3D constructs. MG63 cells also exhibited porosity-dependent responses on HR constructs, with up to a 6.9-fold increase in factor production on LP-HR and MP-HR constructs than on HP-HR constructs. NHOsts were then used to validate biological response on HR constructs. NHOsts exhibited decreased DNA content and alkaline phosphatase activity and up to a 2.9-fold increase in OCN, OPG, VEGF, BMP2, and BMP4 on 3D HR constructs than on 2D controls. These results indicate that osteoblasts prefer a 3D architecture than a 2D surface and that osteoblasts are sensitive to the resolution of trabecular detail and porosity parameters of laser-sintered 3D Ti-6Al-4V constructs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChiaHN, WuBM. Recent advances in 3d printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng, 2015; 9:4.
2.
van NoortR. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater, 2012; 28:3–12.
3.
LongM, RackHJ. Titanium alloys in total joint replacement—A materials science perspective. Biomaterials, 1998; 19:1621–1639.
4.
Van NoortR. Titanium: The implant material of today. J Mater Sci, 1987; 22:3801–3811.
5.
WennerbergA, AlbrektssonT. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2009; 20Suppl 4:172–184.
6.
LangNP, SalviGE, Huynh-BaG, et al.Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011; 22:349–356.
7.
MoyPK, MedinaD, ShettyV, et al.Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2005; 20:569–577.
8.
MeldrumRD, WurtzLD, FeinbergJR, et al.Does smoking affect implant survivorship in total hip arthroplasty? A preliminary retrospective case series. Iowa Orthop J, 2005; 25:17–24.
9.
JämsenE, PeltolaM, EskelinenA, et al.Comorbid diseases as predictors of survival of primary total hip and knee replacements: A nationwide register-based study of 96 754 operations on patients with primary osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis, 2013; 72:1975–1982.
10.
OhI, HarrisWH. Proximal strain distribution in the loaded femur. An in vitro comparison of the distributions in the intact femur and after insertion of different hip-replacement femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1978; 60:75–85.
11.
SumnerDR, GalanteJO. Determinants of stress shielding: Design versus materials versus interface. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1992; 274:202–212.
12.
JariwalaSH, LewisGS, BushmanZJ, et al.3d printing of personalized artificial bone scaffolds. 3D Printing Additive Manufac, 2015; 2:56–64.
13.
ManganoF, ChambroneL, van NoortR, et al.Direct metal laser sintering titanium dental implants: A review of the current literature. Int J Biomater, 2014; 2014:461534.
14.
ManganoF, BazzoliM, TettamantiL, et al.Custom-made, selective laser sintering (sls) blade implants as a non-conventional solution for the prosthetic rehabilitation of extremely atrophied posterior mandible. Lasers Med Sci, 2013; 28:1241–1247.
15.
ManganoC, PiattelliA, d'AvilaS, et al.Early human bone response to laser metal sintering surface topography: A histologic report. J Oral Implantol, 2010; 36:91–96.
16.
TrainiT, ManganoC, SammonsRL, et al.Direct laser metal sintering as a new approach to fabrication of an isoelastic functionally graded material for manufacture of porous titanium dental implants. Dent Mater, 2008; 24:1525–1533.
17.
ChengA, HumayunA, CohenDJ, et al.Additively manufactured 3d porous ti-6al-4v constructs mimic trabecular bone structure and regulate osteoblast proliferation, differentiation and local factor production in a porosity and surface roughness dependent manner. Biofabrication, 2014; 6:045007.
18.
de WildM, SchumacherR, MayerK, et al.Bone regeneration by the osteoconductivity of porous titanium implants manufactured by selective laser melting: A histological and micro computed tomography study in the rabbit. Tissue Eng Part A, 2013; 19:2645–2654.
19.
PalmquistA, SnisA, EmanuelssonL, et al.Long-term biocompatibility and osseointegration of electron beam melted, free-form-fabricated solid and porous titanium alloy: Experimental studies in sheep. J Biomater Appl, 2013; 27:1003–1016.
20.
GittensRA, Olivares-NavarreteR, ChengA, et al.The roles of titanium surface micro/nanotopography and wettability on the differential response of human osteoblast lineage cells. Acta Biomater, 2013; 9:6268–6277.
21.
RackHJ, QaziJI. Titanium alloys for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2006; 26:1269–1277.
22.
GeethaM, SinghAK, AsokamaniR, et al.Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants—A review. Prog Mater Sci, 2009; 54:397–425.
23.
KrishnaBV, BoseS, BandyopadhyayA. Low stiffness porous ti structures for load-bearing implants. Acta Biomater, 2007; 3:997–1006.
24.
ParthasarathyJ, StarlyB, RamanS. A design for the additive manufacture of functionally graded porous structures with tailored mechanical properties for biomedical applications. J Manuf Process, 2011; 13:160–170.
25.
Sallica-LevaE, JardiniAL, FogagnoloJB. Microstructure and mechanical behavior of porous ti–6al–4v parts obtained by selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2013; 26:98–108.
26.
RoqueWL, Alberich-BayarriA. Tortuosity influence on the trabecular bone elasticity and mechanical competence. In: TavaresJMRS, Natal JorgeR, editors. Developments in medical image processing and computational vision. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 173–191.
27.
ParthasarathyJ, StarlyB, RamanS, et al.Mechanical evaluation of porous titanium (ti6al4v) structures with electron beam melting (ebm). J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2010; 3:249–259.
28.
ReillyDT, BursteinAH, FrankelVH. The elastic modulus for bone. J Biomech, 1974; 7:271–275.
29.
PonaderS, von WilmowskyC, WidenmayerM, et al.In vivo performance of selective electron beam-melted ti-6al-4v structures. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2010; 92A:56–62.
30.
ManiatopoulosC, PilliarRM, SmithDC. Threaded versus porous-surfaced designs for implant stabilization in bone-endodontic implant model. J Biomed Mater Res, 1986; 20:1309–1333.
31.
ZingerO, ZhaoG, SchwartzZ, et al.Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features. Biomaterials, 2005; 26:1837–1847.
32.
GittensRA, McLachlanT, Olivares-NavarreteR, et al.The effects of combined micron-/submicron-scale surface roughness and nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation. Biomaterials, 2011; 32:3395–3403.
33.
GittensRA, Olivares-NavarreteR, SchwartzZ, et al.Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: Lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater, 2014; 10:3363–3371.
34.
CzekanskaEM, StoddartMJ, RalphsJR, et al.A phenotypic comparison of osteoblast cell lines versus human primary osteoblasts for biomaterials testing. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2014; 102:2636–2643.
35.
GittensRA, Olivares-NavarreteR, McLachlanT, et al.Differential responses of osteoblast lineage cells to nanotopographically-modified, microroughened titanium–aluminum–vanadium alloy surfaces. Biomaterials, 2012; 33:8986–8994.
36.
LohmannCH, BonewaldLF, SiskMA, et al.Maturation state determines the response of osteogenic cells to surface roughness and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin d3. J Bone Miner Res, 2000; 15:1169–1180.
37.
Olivares-NavarreteR, RainesAL, HyzySL, et al.Osteoblast maturation and new bone formation in response to titanium implant surface features are reduced with age. J Biomed Mater Res, 2012; 27:1773–1783.
38.
Olivares-NavarreteR, HyzySL, ChaudhriRA, et al.Sex dependent regulation of osteoblast response to implant surface properties by systemic hormones. Biol Sex Differ, 2010; 1:4.
39.
Olivares-NavarreteR, RazP, ZhaoG, et al.Integrin α2β1 plays a critical role in osteoblast response to micron-scale surface structure and surface energy of titanium substrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2008; 105:15767–15772.
40.
WangX, SchwartzZ, GittensRA, et al.Role of integrin α2β1 in mediating osteoblastic differentiation on three-dimensional titanium scaffolds with submicron-scale texture. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2015; 103:1907–1918.
41.
FroschKH, BarvencikF, LohmannCH, et al.Migration, matrix production and lamellar bone formation of human osteoblast-like cells in porous titanium implants. Cells Tissues Organs, 2002; 170:214–227.
42.
BotchweyEA, PollackSR, El-AminS, et al.Human osteoblast-like cells in three-dimensional culture with fluid flow. Biorheology, 2003; 40:299–306.
43.
KapurS, BaylinkDJ, William LauKH. Fluid flow shear stress stimulates human osteoblast proliferation and differentiation through multiple interacting and competing signal transduction pathways. Bone, 2003; 32:241–251.
44.
OwanI, BurrDB, TurnerCH, et al.Mechanotransduction in bone: Osteoblasts are more responsive to fluid forces than mechanical strain. Am J Physiol, 1997; 273:C810–C815.
