The objective of this study was to determine biocompatibility of zirconia-based coatings obtained by the sol–gel method. Two matrices, ZrO2 and SiO2/ZrO2, were created and applied on stainless steel type 316L with dip-coating technique. The morphology and topography of biomaterials’ surface were characterized using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and atomic force microscopy, while chemical composition was analyzed by Raman spectroscopy. Additionally, wettability and surface free energy were characterized. Biocompatibility of obtained biomaterials was evaluated using an in vitro model employing mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) of adipose and bone marrow origin. Biological analysis included determination of proliferation activity and morphology of MSCs in cultures on synthesized biomaterials. Osteoinductive properties of biomaterials were determined both in non-osteogenic, as well as osteogenic conditions. The results showed that investigated biomaterials exerted different impact on MSCs. Biomaterial with ZrO2 layer was more biocompatible for adipose-derived MSCs, while SiO2/ZrO2 layer promoted proliferation of bone marrow derived MSCs. Moreover, hybrid coating exhibited greater osteoinductive properties than ZrO2 coating, both on cultures with adipose-derived stromal (stem) cells and bone marrow stromal cells. Observed biological effects may result not only from different chemical composition, but also from diverse wettability. The ZrO2 coating was characterized as hydrophobic layer, while SiO2/ZrO2 exhibited hydrophilic properties. The results obtained suggest that behavior of MSCs in response to the biomaterial may vary depending on their origin, therefore we postulate, that screening analysis of implants’ biocompatibility, should incorporate model applying both adipose- and bone marrow derived MSCs.
MatassiFBottiASirleoL. Porous metal for orthopedics implants. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab2013; 10: 111–115.
2.
BarradasAMYuanHVan BlitterswijkCA. Osteoinductive biomaterials: current knowledge of properties, experimental models and biological mechanisms. Eur Cell Mater2011; 21: 407–429.
3.
WangDBierwagenGP. Sol–gel coatings on metals for corrosion protection. Prog Org Coat2009; 64: 327–338.
4.
BallarreJManjubalaISchreinerWH. Improving the osteointegration and bone-implant interface by incorporation of bioactive particles in sol-gel coatings of stainless steel implants. Acta Biomater2010; 6: 1601–1609.
5.
Ben-NissanBChoiAH. Sol-gel production of bioactive nanocoatings for medical applications. Part 1: an introduction. Nanomedicine (Lond)2006; 1: 311–319.
6.
MahadikSAMahadikDBKavaleMS. Thermally stable and transparent superhydrophobic sol–gel coatings by spray method. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol2012; 63: 580–586.
7.
GrossKABerndtCC. In vitro testing of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatitecoatings. J Mater Sci Mater Med1994; 5: 219–224.
8.
MaxianSHZawadskyJPDunnMG. Mechanical and histological evaluation of amorphous calcium phosphate and poorly crystallized hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res1993; 27: 17–28.
9.
BallarreJLiuYMendozaE. Enhancing low cost stainless steel implants: bioactive silica based sol–gel coatings with wollastonite particles. Int J Nano Biomater2012; 4: 33–53.
10.
BeckGR JrHaSWCamalierCE. Bioactive silica-based nanoparticles stimulate bone-forming osteoblasts, suppress bone-resorbing osteoclasts, and enhance bone mineral density in vivo. Nanomedicine2012; 8: 793–803.
11.
ChangSDoongR. ZrO2 thin films with controllable morphology and thickness by spin-coated sol–gel method. Thin Solid Films2005; 489: 17–22.
12.
SalahinejadEHadianfardMJMacdonaldDD. Surface modification of stainless steel orthopedic implants by sol-gel ZrTiO4 and ZrTiO4-PMMA coatings. J Biomed Nanotechnol2013; 9: 1327–1335.
13.
Steinemann SG. Evaluation of biomaterials. Wiley, 1980, pp.20–35.
14.
NouriEShahmiriMRezaieHR. Investigation of structural evolution and electrochemical behavior of zirconia thin films on the 316L stainless steel substrate formed via sol–gel process. Surf Coat Technol2011; 205: 5109–5115.
15.
FerrarisMVernéEAppendinoP. Coatings of zirconia for medical applications. Biomaterials2000; 21: 765–773.
16.
InoueA. Stabilization of metallic supercooled liquid and bulk amorphous alloys. Acta Mater2000; 48: 279–306.
17.
LiuXHuangADingC. Bioactivity and cytocompatibility of zirconia (ZrO2) films fabricated by cathodic arc deposition. Biomaterials2006; 27: 3904–3911.
18.
Marycz K, Krzak-Roś J, Donesz-Sikorska A, et al. The morphology, proliferation rate, and population doubling time factor of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells cultured on to non-aqueous SiO2, TiO2 and hybrid sol-gel-derived oxide coatings. J Biomed Mater Res A. Epub ahead of print 23 December 2013. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35072.
19.
Krzak-RośJFilipiakJPezowiczC. The effect of substrate roughness on the surface structure of TiO2, SiO2, and doped thin films prepared by the sol-gel method. Acta Bioeng Biomech2009; 11: 21–29.
20.
DasKBoseSBandyopadhyayA. Surface modifications and cell-materials interactions with anodized Ti. Acta Biomater2007; 3: 573–585.
Padial-MolinaMGalindo-MorenoPFernández-BarberoJE. Role of wettability and nanoroughness on interactions between osteoblast and modified silicon surfaces. Acta Biomater2011; 7: 771–778.
23.
NeussS. Assessment of stem cell/biomaterial combinations for stem cell-based tissue engineering. Biomaterials2008; 29: 302–313.
24.
ZippelNSchulzeMTobiaschE. Biomaterials and mesenchymal stem cells for regenerative medicine. Recent Pat Biotechnol2010; 4: 1–22.
25.
KernSEichlerHStoeveJ. Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue. Stem Cells2006; 24: 1294–1301.
26.
SchraufstatterIUDiscipioRGKhaldoyanidiS. Mesenchymal stem cells and their microenvironment. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed)2011; 16: 2271–2288.
27.
MaryczKŚmieszekAGrzesiakJ. Application of bone marrow and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells for testing the biocompatibility of metal-based biomaterials functionalized with ascorbic acid. Biomed Mater2013; 8: 065004–065004.
28.
KalińskiKMaryczKCzogałaJ. An application of scanning electron microscopy combined with roentgen microanalysis (SEM-EDS) in canine urolithiasis. J Electron Microsc (Tokyo)2012; 61: 47–55.
29.
TropelPNoëlDPlatetN. Isolation and characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from adult mouse bone marrow. Exp Cell Res2004; 295: 395–406.
30.
Donesz-Sikorska A, Grzesiak J, Smieszeka A, et al. The influence of sol-gel-derived silica coatings functionalized with betamethasone on adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs). J Biomater Appl 2014. pii: 0885328214534003.
31.
JinHJBaeYKKimM. Comparative analysis of human mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, adipose tissue, and umbilical cord blood as sources of cell therapy. Int J Mol Sci2013; 14: 17986–18001.
SocratesG. Infrared and Raman characteristic group frequencies: tables and charts, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 2001, pp. 61–63, 94–96, 302.
37.
EhrhartaGCapoenbBRobbeaO. Structural and optical properties of n-propoxide sol–gel derived ZrO2 thin films. Thin Solid Films2006; 496: 227–233.
38.
UhlmannIHawelkaDHildebrandtE. Structure and mechanical properties of silica doped zirconia thin films. Thin Solid Films2013; 527: 200–204.
39.
SpijksmaGIBlankDHABouwmeesterHJM. Modification of different zirconium propoxide precursors by diethanolamine.. Is there a shelf stability issue for sol-gel applications?Int J Mol Sci2009; 10: 4977–4989.
40.
LivageJHenryMSanchezC. Sol-gel chemistry of transition-metal oxides. Prog Solid State Chem1988; 18: 259–341.
SpijksmaGIBouwmeesterHJMBlankDHA. Stabilization and destabilization of zirconium propoxide precursors by acetylacetone. Chem Commun2004; 9: 1874–1875.
43.
ViazziCBoninoJPAnsartF. Synthesis by sol–gel route and characterization of yttria stabilized zirconia coatings for thermal barriers applications. Surf Coat Technol2006; 201: 3889–3893.
44.
CarusoRDíaz-ParralejoAMirandaP. Controlled preparation and characterization of multilayer sol–gel zirconia dip-coatings. J Mater Res2001; 16: 2391–2398.
HoumardMVasconcelosDCLVasconcelosWL. Water and oil wettability of hybrid organic–inorganic titanate–silicate thin films deposited via a sol–gel route. Surf Sci2009; 603: 2698–2607.
47.
BodhakSBoseSBandyopadhyayA. Role of surface charge and wettability on early stage mineralization and bone cell–materials interactions of polarized hydroxyapatite. Acta Biomater2009; 5: 2178–2188.
48.
JunSHLeeEJYookSW. A bioactive coating of a silica xerogel/chitosan hybrid on titanium by a room temperature sol–gel process. Acta Biomater2010; 6: 302–307.
49.
MartinJYSchwartzZHummertTW. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J Biomed Mater Res1995; 29: 389–401.
50.
LimYJOshidaYAndresCJ. Surface characterizations of variously treated titanium materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2001; 16: 333–342.
51.
CooperLF. A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent2000; 84: 522–534.
52.
WhiteheadSAShearerACWattsDC. Comparison of two stylus methods for measuring surface texture. Dent Mater1999; 15: 79–86.
53.
WielandMTextorMSpencerND. Wavelength-dependent roughness: a quantitative approach to characterizing the topography of rough titanium surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2001; 16: 163–181.
54.
ChangEJKimHHHuhJE. Low proliferation and high apoptosis of osteoblastic cells on hydrophobic surface are associated with defective Ras signaling. Exp Cell Res2005; 303: 197–206.
55.
RavichandranRCh NgCLiaoS. Biomimetic surface modification of titanium surfaces for early cell capture by advanced electrospinning. Biomed Mater2012; 7: 015001–015001.
56.
MurakamiAArimotoTSuzukiD. Antimicrobial and osteogenic properties of a hydrophilic-modified nanoscale hydroxyapatite coating on titanium. Nanomedicine2012; 8: 374–382.
57.
RandeniyaLBendavidAMartinP. Thin film composites of nanocrystalline ZrO(2) and diamond-like carbon: Synthesis, structural properties and bone cell proliferation. Acta Biomater2010; 6: 4154–4160.
58.
GarfinkelATintutYPetrasekD. Pattern formation by vascular mesenchymal cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2004; 101: 9247–9250.
59.
KyllönenLHaimiSMannerströmB. Effects of different serum conditions on osteogenic differentiation of human adipose stem cells in vitro. Stem Cell Res Ther2013; 4: 17–17.
60.
ToupadakisCAWongAGenetosDC. Comparison of the osteogenic potential of equine mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord blood, and umbilical cord tissue. Am J Vet Res2010; 71: 1237–1245.
61.
KashaniIRZaminyABarbarestaniM. In vitro osteogenesis of rat adipose-derived stem cells: comparison with bone marrow stem cells. Arch Med Sci2009; 5: 149–155.
