Surface modification of titanium manufactured through selective laser melting inhibited osteoclast differentiation through mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2020
Surface modification of titanium manufactured through selective laser melting inhibited osteoclast differentiation through mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway
Selective laser melting used in manufacturing custom-made titanium implants becomes more popular. In view of the important role played by osteoclasts in peri-implant bone resorption and osseointegration, we modified selective laser melting-manufactured titanium surfaces using sandblasting/alkali-heating and sandblasting/acid-etching, and investigated their effect on osteoclast differentiation as well as their underlying mechanisms. The properties of the surfaces, including elements, roughness, wettability and topography, were analyzed. We evaluated the proliferation and morphology of primary mouse bone marrow-derived monocytes, as well as induced osteoclasts derived from bone marrow-derived monocytes, on samples. Then, osteoclast differentiation was determined by the tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase activity assay, calcitonin receptors immunofluorescence staining and the expression of osteoclast-related genes. The results showed that sandblasting/alkali-heating established nanonet structure with the lowest water contact angle, and both sandblasting/alkali-heating and sandblasting/acid-etching significantly decreased surface roughness and heterogeneity compared with selective laser melting. Surface modifications of selective laser melting-produced titanium altered bone marrow-derived monocyte morphology and suppressed bone marrow-derived monocyte proliferation and osteoclastogenesis in vitro (sandblasting/alkali-heating>sandblasting/acid-etching>selective laser melting). These surface modifications reduced the activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase and c-Jun N-terminal kinases compared to native-selective laser melting. Sandblasting/alkali-heating additionally blocked tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor 6 recruitment. The results suggested that sandblasting/alkali-heating and sandblasting/acid-etching modifications on selective laser melting titanium could inhibit osteoclast differentiation through suppressing extracellular signal-regulated kinase and c-Jun N-terminal kinase phosphorylation in mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway and provide a promising technique which might reduce peri-implant bone resorption for optimizing native-selective laser melting implants.
BuserDSennerbyLDe BruynH.Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 20002017;
73: 7–21.
2.
BosshardtDDChappuisVBuserD.Osseointegration of titanium, titanium alloy and zirconia dental implants: current knowledge and open questions. Periodontol 20002017;
73: 22–40.
3.
SteigengaJTAl-ShammariKFNocitiFH, et al.
Dental implant design and its relationship to long-term implant success. Implant Dent2003;
12: 306–317.
4.
FigliuzziMManganoFManganoC.A novel root analogue dental implant using CT scan and CAD/CAM: selective laser melting technology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012;
41: 858–862.
5.
ManganoFGCirottiBSammonsRL, et al.
Custom-made, root-analogue direct laser metal forming implant: a case report. Lasers Med Sci2012;
27: 1241–1245.
6.
ManganoFGDe FrancoMCaprioglioA, et al.
Immediate, non-submerged, root-analogue direct laser metal sintering (DLMS) implants: a 1-year prospective study on 15 patients. Lasers Med Sci2014;
29: 1321–1328.
7.
RotaruHSchumacherRKimSG, et al.
Selective laser melted titanium implants: a new technique for the reconstruction of extensive zygomatic complex defects. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg2015;
37: 1.
8.
Farre-GuaschEWolffJHelderMN, et al.
Application of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015;
73: 2408–2418.
9.
BhargavASanjairajVRosaV, et al.
Applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: a review. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater2018;
106: 2058–2064.
10.
BanerjeeSKuleshaGKesterM, et al.
Emerging technologies in arthroplasty: additive manufacturing. J Knee Surg2014;
27: 185–191.
11.
TrevisanFCalignanoFAversaA, et al.
Additive manufacturing of titanium alloys in the biomedical field: processes, properties and applications. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater2018;
16: 57–67.
12.
SingSLAnJYeongWY, et al.
Laser and electron-beam powder-bed additive manufacturing of metallic implants: a review on processes, materials and designs. J Orthop Res2016;
34: 369–385.
13.
PengWXuLYouJ, et al.
Selective laser melting of titanium alloy enables osseointegration of porous multi-rooted implants in a rabbit model. Biomed Eng Online2016;
15: 85.
14.
ShaokiAXuJYSunH, et al.
Osseointegration of three-dimensional designed titanium implants manufactured by selective laser melting. Biofabrication2016;
8: 045014.
15.
XuJYChenXSZhangCY, et al.
Improved bioactivity of selective laser melting titanium: surface modification with micro-/nano-textured hierarchical topography and bone regeneration performance evaluation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2016;
68: 229–240.
16.
RanaMGellrichMMGellrichNC.Customised reconstruction of the orbital wall and engineering of selective laser melting (SLM) core implants. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015;
53: 208–209.
17.
SumidaTOtawaNKamataYU, et al.
Custom-made titanium devices as membranes for bone augmentation in implant treatment: clinical application and the comparison with conventional titanium mesh. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2015;
43: 2183–2188.
18.
HuXXuRYuX, et al.
Enhanced antibacterial efficacy of selective laser melting titanium surface with nanophase calcium phosphate embedded to TiO2 nanotubes. Biomed Mater2018;
13: 045015.
19.
JordanaFSusbiellesLColat-ParrosJ.Periimplantitis and implant body roughness: a systematic review of literature. Implant Dent2018;
27: 672–681.
20.
De BruynHChristiaensVDoornewaardR, et al.
Implant surface roughness and patient factors on long-term peri-implant bone loss. Periodontol 20002017;
73: 218–227.
21.
NuneKCMisraRGaiX, et al.
Surface nanotopography-induced favorable modulation of bioactivity and osteoconductive potential of anodized 3D printed Ti-6Al-4V alloy mesh structure. J Biomater Appl2018;
32: 1032–1048.
22.
KaivosojaEMyllymaaSTakakuboY, et al.
Osteogenesis of human mesenchymal stem cells on micro-patterned surfaces. J Biomater Appl2013;
27: 862–871.
23.
PellegriniGFrancettiLBarbaroB, et al.
Novel surfaces and osseointegration in implant dentistry. J Investig Clin Dent2018;
9: e12349.
24.
AlbrektssonTWennerbergA.On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2019;
21: 4–7.
25.
SmeetsRStadlingerBSchwarzF, et al.
Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. Biomed Res Int2016;
2016: 6285620.
26.
MengHWChienEYChienHH.Dental implant bioactive surface modifications and their effects on osseointegration: a review. Biomark Res2016;
4: 24–12.
27.
HuanhuanJPengjieHShengX, et al.
The effect of strontium-loaded rough titanium surface on early osseointegration. J Biomater Appl2017;
32: 561–569.
28.
KwonYSParkJW.Osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells modulated by a chemically modified super-hydrophilic titanium implant surface. J Biomater Appl2018;
33: 205–215.
29.
TsukanakaMFujibayashiSTakemotoM, et al.
Bioactive treatment promotes osteoblast differentiation on titanium materials fabricated by selective laser melting technology. Dent Mater J2016;
35: 118–125.
30.
de WildMSchumacherRMayerK, 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 A2013;
19: 2645–2654.
31.
KylmaojaENakamuraMTuukkanenJ.Osteoclasts and remodeling based bone formation. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther2016;
11: 626–633.
32.
Schwartz-AradDHerzbergRLevinL.Evaluation of long-term implant success. J Periodontol2005;
76: 1623–1628.
33.
AlbrektssonTChrcanovicBOstmanPO, et al.
Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol 20002017;
73: 41–50.
34.
OhtsuAKusakariHMaedaT, et al.
A histological investigation on tissue responses to titanium implants in cortical bone of the rat femur. J Periodontol1997;
68: 270–283.
35.
SalviGEBosshardtDDLangNP, et al.
Temporal sequence of hard and soft tissue healing around titanium dental implants. Periodontol 20002015;
68: 135–152.
36.
BoyleWJSimonetWSLaceyDL.Osteoclast differentiation and activation. Nature2003;
423: 337–342.
37.
SteffiCShiZKongCH, et al.
Modulation of osteoclast interactions with orthopaedic biomaterials. J Funct Biomater2018;
9: 18.
38.
MarchisioMDi CarmineMPagoneR, et al.
Implant surface roughness influences osteoclast proliferation and differentiation. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater2005;
75: 251–256.
39.
BrinkmannJHeftiTSchlottigF, et al.
Response of osteoclasts to titanium surfaces with increasing surface roughness: an in vitro study. Biointerphases2012;
7: 34.
40.
NagasawaMCooperLFOginoY, et al.
Topography influences adherent cell regulation of osteoclastogenesis. J Dent Res2016;
95: 319–326.
41.
LotzEMBergerMBSchwartzZ, et al.
Regulation of osteoclasts by osteoblast lineage cells depends on titanium implant surface properties. Acta Biomater2018;
68: 296–307.
42.
MamalisAAMarkopoulouCVrotsosI, et al.
Chemical modification of an implant surface increases osteogenesis and simultaneously reduces osteoclastogenesis: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res2011;
22: 619–626.
43.
BangSMMoonHJKwonYD, et al.
Osteoblastic and osteoclastic differentiation on SLA and hydrophilic modified SLA titanium surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res2014;
25: 831–837.
44.
SilverwoodRKFairhurstPGSjostromT, et al.
Analysis of osteoclastogenesis/osteoblastogenesis on nanotopographical titania surfaces. Adv Healthc Mater2016;
5: 947–955.
45.
LiYLiFZhangC, et al.
The dimension of titania nanotubes influences implant success for osteoclastogenesis and osteogenesis patients. J Nanosci Nanotechnol2015;
15: 4136–4142.
46.
PlackoHEMishraSWeimerJJ, et al.
Surface characterization of titanium-based implant materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2000;
15: 355–363.
47.
RuppFGittensRAScheidelerL, et al.
A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces I: theoretical and experimental aspects. Acta Biomater2014;
10: 2894–2906.
48.
RuppFLiangLGeis-GerstorferJ, et al.
Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater2018;
34: 40–57.
49.
CanabarroAFigueiredoFPaciornikS, et al.
Two- and three-dimensional profilometer assessments to determine titanium roughness. Scanning2009;
31: 174–179.
50.
SpringerTGalfreGSecherDS, et al.
Mac-1: a macrophage differentiation antigen identified by monoclonal antibody. Eur J Immunol1979;
9: 301–306.
51.
TakeshitaSKajiKKudoA.Identification and characterization of the new osteoclast progenitor with macrophage phenotypes being able to differentiate into mature osteoclasts. J Bone Miner Res2000;
15: 1477–1488.
52.
MiBXiongWXuN, et al.
Strontium-loaded titania nanotube arrays repress osteoclast differentiation through multiple signalling pathways: In vitro and in vivo studies. Sci Rep2017;
7: 2328.
53.
LivakKJSchmittgenTD.Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods2001;
25: 402–408.
54.
SchneiderCARasbandWSEliceiriKW.NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods2012;
9: 671–675.
55.
VaithilingamJGoodridgeRDHagueRJM, et al.
The effect of laser remelting on the surface chemistry of Ti6al4V components fabricated by selective laser melting. J Mater Process Tech2016;
232: 1–8.
56.
MakihiraSMineYKosakaE, et al.
Titanium surface roughness accelerates RANKL-dependent differentiation in the osteoclast precursor cell line, RAW264.7. Dent Mater J2007;
26: 739–745.
57.
DoornewaardRChristiaensVDe BruynH, et al.
Long-term effect of surface roughness and patients’ factors on crestal bone loss at dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2017;
19: 372–399.
58.
MiyazaTKimHMKokuboT, et al.
Mechanism of bonelike apatite formation on bioactive tantalum metal in a simulated body fluid. Biomaterials2002;
23: 827–832.
59.
KatoESakuraiKYamadaM.Periodontal-like gingival connective tissue attachment on titanium surface with nano-ordered spikes and pores created by alkali-heat treatment. Dent Mater2015;
31: e116–e130.
60.
ParkJHOlivares-NavarreteRBaierRE, et al.
Effect of cleaning and sterilization on titanium implant surface properties and cellular response. Acta Biomater2012;
8: 1966–1975.
61.
NakayamaTMizoguchiTUeharaS, et al.
Polarized osteoclasts put marks of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase on dentin slices – a simple method for identifying polarized osteoclasts. Bone2011;
49: 1331–1339.
62.
SoskolneWACohenSSennerbyL, et al.
The effect of titanium surface roughness on the adhesion of monocytes and their secretion of TNF-alpha and PGE2. Clin Oral Implants Res2002;
13: 86–93.
63.
TayCYIrvineSABoeyFY, et al.
Micro-/nano-engineered cellular responses for soft tissue engineering and biomedical applications. Small2011;
7: 1361–1378.
64.
NishimotoSKNishimotoMParkSW, et al.
The effect of titanium surface roughening on protein absorption, cell attachment, and cell spreading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2008;
23: 675–680.
65.
PonsonnetLReybierKJaffrezic-RenaultN, et al.
Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability) of titanium and titanium alloys and cell behaviour. Mater Sci Eng C2003;
23: 551–560.
66.
PapenburgBRodriguesEWesslingM, et al.
Insights into the role of material surface topography and wettability on cell-material interactions. Soft Matter2010;
6: 4377–4388.
67.
QuinnJMMorfisMLamMH, et al.
Calcitonin receptor antibodies in the identification of osteoclasts. Bone1999;
25: 1–8.
68.
KhanUAHashimiSMKhanS, et al.
Differential expression of chemokines, chemokine receptors and proteinases by foreign body giant cells (FBGCs) and osteoclasts. J Cell Biochem2014;
115: 1290–1298.
69.
ZhangYChenSEShaoJ, et al.
Combinatorial surface roughness effects on osteoclastogenesis and osteogenesis. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2018;
10: 36652–36663.
70.
KarazisisDBalloAMPetronisS, et al.
The role of well-defined nanotopography of titanium implants on osseointegration: cellular and molecular events in vivo. Int J Nanomed2016;
11: 1367–1382.
71.
Costa-RodriguesJCarmoSPerpetuoIP, et al.
Osteoclastogenic differentiation of human precursor cells over micro- and nanostructured hydroxyapatite topography. Biochim Biophys Acta2016;
1860: 825–835.
72.
AouadiMBinetruyBCaronL, et al.
Role of MAPKs in development and differentiation: lessons from knockout mice. Biochimie2006;
88: 1091–1098.
73.
ParkJHLeeNKLeeSY.Current understanding of RANK signaling in osteoclast differentiation and maturation. Mol Cells2017;
40: 706–713.
74.
MebratuYTesfaigziY.How ERK1/2 activation controls cell proliferation and cell death is subcellular localization the answer?Cell Cycle2009;
8: 1168–1175.
75.
ZekeAMishevaMRemenyiA, et al.
JNK signaling: regulation and functions based on complex protein-protein partnerships. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev2016;
80: 793–835.
76.
SinghatanadgitWTosoMPratheepsawangwongB, et al.
Titanium dioxide nanotubes of defined diameter enhance mesenchymal stem cell proliferation via JNK- and ERK-dependent up-regulation of fibroblast growth factor-2 by T lymphocytes. J Biomater Appl2019;
33: 997–1010.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
