Biocompatibility evaluation in vitro. Part III: Cytotoxicity expression of human and animal osteoblasts on the biomaterials

Abstract

Exclusion and inflammation in the clinic are observed for various reasons including material chemical composition, physical properties as well as macro- and micro-structure of the implants, surface condition of the implants, and also patient dependent factors. Cytotoxicity expression of cells is a central issue in current biocompatibility to screen the potential implant materials and drugs. This study was aimed at investigation reaction between the potential implant materials and surround tissue. Cytotoxicity of human and rat osteoblast in the material extracts was determinated by testing standards such as GHS assay, MTT assay, alkaline phosphatase activity assay, LDH assay, and Lowry assay. Research results demonstrated that compared with the control condition polystyrene culture plate both human and rat osteoblast cells have normal phenotypic expression in hydroxyapatite extract, and this expression was statistically restricted in hydroxyapatite-spinel extract. However, this restrict, e.g. cytotoxicity could be partially eliminated by immersion treatment of the materials in culture medium.

Keywords

biomaterial / cytotoxicity / biological molecular technique

References

[1] WilliamsD FSystemic aspects of biocompatibility[M]. Vol I, 1981, Florida, CRC Press: 49-56

[2] PrigentH, Pellen-MussiP, GathelineauG, et al.. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of titanium-tantalum alloy versus titanium[J]. J Biomed Mater Res, 1998, 89: 200-206

[3] RuanJ, HuangB, LinB. A study of Ca-P based bioceramic materials[J]. J CSUT, 1992, 23: 60-65(in Chinese)

[4] RuanJ, HuangB, ZhouJ, et al.. A study of bioceramic material with biodegradable function[J]. J CSUT, 1993, 24: 509-514

[5] RuanJ, HuangB, WenJ. Bioceramic composite materials[J]. Founctional Mates, 1993, 24: 561-565(in Chinese)

[6] RuanJ, GrantM H. Biocompatibility evaluation in vitro. Part I: Morphology expression and proliferation of human and rat osteoblasts on the biomaterials[J]. J CSUT, 2001, 8: 1-8

[7] AnuforoD C, AcostaD, SmithR V. Hepatotoxicity studies with primary cultures of rat liver cells[J]. In Vitro, 1978, 14: 981-989

[8] HissinP J, HilfR. A fluorimetric method for determination of oxidised and reduced glutathione in tissue[J]. Anal Biochem, 1976, 74: 214-226

[9] RodgersE H, GrantM H. The effect of the flavonoids, quercetin, myricetin and epicatechin on the growth and enzyme activities of MCF7 human breast cancer cells[J]. Chem-Biol Interact, 1998, 116: 213-228

[10] ShiQ, GaylorJ S, CousinsR, et al.. The effects of serum from patients with acute liver failure on the growth and metabolism of Hep G2 cells[J]. J Artifi Org, 1998, 22: 1023-1030

[11] MacnairR A, RodgersE H, MacdonaldC, et al.. The response of primary rat and human osteoblasts and immortalised rat osteoblast cell to orthopaedic materials: Comparative sensitivity and several toxicity indices[J]. J Mater Sci: Mater Med, 1997, 47: 105-111

[12] MacnairR A, WilkinsonR, MacDonaldC. Application of confocal laser scanning microscopy to cytocompatibility testing of potential orthopaedic materials in immortalised osteoblast-like cell lines[J]. Cells and Mater, 1996, 6: 71-78

[13] AngererJ, SchallerK. Analysis of Hazardous substances in biological materials [M]. Wilay-VCH Germany, 1999, 6: 1-62

[14] GregoireM, OrlyI, MenanteauJ. The influence of calcium phosphate biomaterials on human bone cell activities. An in vitro approach[J]. J Biomed Mater Res, 1990, 24: 165-177

[15] LetzelS, SchallerK H, AngererJ, et al.. Biological monitoring of occupational aluminium powder exposure[J]. Occup, 1996, 3: 271-280

[16] JefferyE HGoyerRA, CherianMG. Biochemical mechanisms of aluminium toxicity [A]. toxicology of Metals [C], 1995, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag: 138-161