Alumina-titanium materials (cermets) of enhanced mechanical properties have been lately developed. In this work, physical properties such as electrical conductivity and the crystalline phases in the bulk material are evaluated. As these new cermets manufactured by spark plasma sintering may have potential application for hard tissue replacements, their biocompatibility needs to be evaluated. Thus, this research aims to study the cytocompatibility of a novel alumina-titanium (25 vol. % Ti) cermet compared to its pure counterpart, the spark plasma sintered alumina. The influence of the particular surface properties (chemical composition, roughness and wettability) on the pre-osteoblastic cell response is also analyzed. The material electrical resistance revealed that this cermet may be machined to any shape by electroerosion. The investigated specimens had a slightly undulated topography, with a roughness pattern that had similar morphology in all orientations (isotropic roughness) and a sub-micrometric average roughness. Differences in skewness that implied valley-like structures in the cermet and predominance of peaks in alumina were found. The cermet presented a higher surface hydrophilicity than alumina. Any cytotoxicity risk associated with the new materials or with the innovative manufacturing methodology was rejected. Proliferation and early-differentiation stages of osteoblasts were statistically improved on the composite. Thus, our results suggest that this new multifunctional cermet could improve current alumina-based biomedical devices for applications such as hip joint replacements.
ChiaraGLetiziaFLorenzoF. Nanostructured biomaterials for tissue engineered bone tissue reconstruction. Int J Mol Sci2012; 13: 737–757.
2.
GeorgeARavindranS. Protein templates in hard tissue engineering. Nano Today2010; 5: 254–266.
3.
LiuXChuPKDingC. Surface modification of titanium, titanium alloys, and related materials for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng R:Rep2004; 47: 49–121.
4.
NasabMBHassanMR. Metallic biomaterials of knee and hip-a review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs2010; 24: 69–82.
5.
BahraminasabMSahariBBEdwardsKL. Aseptic loosening of femoral components – a review of current and future trends in materials used. Mater Des2012; 42: 459–470.
6.
ChevalierJGremillardL. Ceramics for medical applications: a picture for the next 20 years. J Eur Ceram Soc2009; 29: 1245–1255.
7.
BoutinPChristelPDorlotJM. The use of dense alumina–alumina ceramic combination in total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res1988; 22: 1203–1232.
8.
KarlssonMPålsgårdEWilshawPR. Initial in vitro interaction of osteoblasts with nano-porous alumina. Biomaterials2003; 24: 3039–3046.
9.
WebsterTJSiegelRWBiziosR. Design and evaluation of nanophase alumina for orthopaedic/dental applications. Nanostruct Mater1999; 12: 983–986.
10.
FlinnBDRuhleMEvansAG. Toughening in composites of Al2O3 reinforced with Al. Acta Metallurgica Et Materialia1989; 37: 3001–3006.
11.
RahamanMNHuangTYaoA. SiC nanoparticle-reinforced Al2O3-Nb composite as a potential femoral head material in total hip arthroplasty. Mater Sci Eng C2010; 30: 1197–1203.
12.
RaddatzOSchneiderGAMackensW. Bridging stresses and R-curves in ceramic/metal composites. J Eur Ceram Soc2000; 20: 2261–2273.
13.
Gutierrez-GonzalezCFernandez-GarciaEFernandezA. Processing, spark plasma sintering, and mechanical behavior of alumina/titanium composites. J Mater Sci2014; 49: 3823–3830.
14.
BataluDStanciucAMMoldovanL. Evaluation of pristine and Eu 2 O 3-added MgB 2 ceramics for medical applications: hardness, corrosion resistance, cytotoxicity and antibacterial activity. Mater Sci Eng C2014; 42: 350–361.
15.
MoyaJSLopez-EstebanSPecharrománC. The challenge of ceramic/metal microcomposites and nanocomposites. Prog Mater Sci2007; 52: 1017–1090.
16.
Lopez-EstebanSGutierrez-GonzalezCFMata-OsoroG. Electrical discharge machining of ceramic/semiconductor/metal nanocomposites. Scripta Materialia2010; 63: 219–222.
17.
KitamuraSOhgushiHHiroseM. Osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal cells cultured on alumina ceramics. Artif Org2004; 28: 72–82.
18.
JuangHYHonMH. Fabrication and mechanical properties of hydroxyapatite-alumina composites. Mater Sci Eng C1994; 2: 77–81.
19.
MoraesMCCdSEliasCNDuailibi FilhoJ. Mechanical properties of alumina-zirconia composites for ceramic abutments. Mater Res2004; 7: 643–649.
20.
WolfWDVaidyaKJFrancisLF. Mechanical properties and failure analysis of alumina glass dental composites. J Am Ceram Soc1996; 79: 1769–1776.
21.
MetzgerWSchwabBMiroMM. Induction of osteogenic differentiation by nanostructured alumina surfaces. J Biomed Nanotechnol2014; 10: 831–845.
22.
FenoglioIFubiniBGhibaudiEM. Multiple aspects of the interaction of biomacromolecules with inorganic surfaces. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2011; 63: 1186–1209.
23.
AnselmeKPoncheABigerelleM. Relative influence of surface topography and surface chemistry on cell response to bone implant materials. Part 2: biological aspects. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med2010; 224: 1487–1507.
24.
BauerSSchmukiPvon der MarkK. Engineering biocompatible implant surfaces: part I: materials and surfaces. Prog Mater Sci2013; 58: 261–326.
25.
BacakovaLFilovaEParizekM. Modulation of cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation on materials designed for body implants. Biotechnol Adv2011; 29: 739–767.
26.
Planell JA, Navarro M, Altankov G, et al. Materials surface effects on biological interactions. In: aEP (ed) Advances in regenerative medicine: role of nanotechnology. NATO science for peace and security series A: chemistry and biology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Verlag, 2010, pp.233–252.
AnselmeKPlouxLPoncheA. Cell/material interfaces: influence of surface chemistry and surface topography on cell adhesion. J Adh Sci Technol2010; 24: 831–852.
29.
Thrivikraman G, Madras G and Basu B. In vitro/In vivo assessment and mechanisms of toxicity of bioceramic materials and its wear particulates. RSC Adv 2014; 4: 12763–12781.
30.
PeguerolesMAparicioCBosioM. Spatial organization of osteoblast fibronectin matrix on titanium surfaces: effects of roughness, chemical heterogeneity and surface energy. Acta Biomaterialia2010; 6: 291–301.
31.
International Standard ISO-10993-5:2009. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 5: Tests for in vitro citotoxicity, 2009. Ed: 4, ISO/TC 194, ICS:11.100.20. www.iso.org.
32.
Al-NasirySGeusensNHanssensM. The use of Alamar Blue assay for quantitative analysis of viability, migration and invasion of choriocarcinoma cells. Hum Reprod2007; 22: 1304–1309.
33.
HoKNewmanS. State of the art electrical discharge machining (EDM). Int J Mach Tools Manuf2003; 43: 1287–1300.
34.
KoyamaMAraiSSuenagaS. Interfacial reactions between titanium film and single crystal α-Al2O3. J Mater Sci1993; 28: 830–834.
35.
Mas-GuindalMJBenkoERodríguezMA. Nanostructured metastable cermets of Ti–Al2O3 through activated SHS reaction. J Alloys Compd2008; 454: 352–358.
36.
Andrade J. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). In: Andrade J (ed) Surface and interfacial aspects of biomedical polymers. New York, NY: Springer, 1985, pp.105–195.
37.
BoonrungsimanSGentlemanECarzanigaR. The role of intracellular calcium phosphate in osteoblast-mediated bone apatite formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci2012; 109: 14170–14175.
38.
KhangDChoiJImY-M. Role of subnano-, nano-and submicron-surface features on osteoblast differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials2012; 33: 5997–6007.
39.
BerryCCCampbellGSpadiccinoA. The influence of microscale topography on fibroblast attachment and motility. Biomaterials2004; 25: 5781–5788.
40.
GittensRAScheidelerLRuppF. A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces II: biological and clinical aspects. Acta Biomaterialia2014; 10: 2907–2918.
41.
StummWMorganJJ. Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
42.
JianhuaWToshioINaotoO. Influence of surface wettability on competitive protein adsorption and initial attachment of osteoblasts. Biomed Mater2009; 4: 045002–045002.
43.
NelAEMädlerLVelegolD. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nat Mater2009; 8: 543–557.
44.
SackmannESmithA-S. Physics of cell adhesion: some lessons from cell-mimetic systems. Soft Matter2014; 10: 1644–1659.
45.
AnselmeK. Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials2000; 21: 667–681.
46.
AnilSAnandPAlghamdiH. Dental implant surface enhancement and osseointegration. Implant Dentistry: a Rapidly Evolving Practice, New York, NY: InTech, 2011, pp. 83–108.
47.
HempelUHeftiTKalbacovaM. Response of osteoblast-like SAOS-2 cells to zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res2010; 21: 174–181.
