z-logo
Premium
Behavior of two osteoblast‐like cell lines cultured on machined or rough titanium surfaces
Author(s) -
Shapira Lior,
Halabi Amal
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01594.x
Subject(s) - alkaline phosphatase , osteoblast , osteocalcin , titanium , cell culture , osseointegration , cell , chemistry , cell growth , phenotype , materials science , microbiology and biotechnology , in vitro , biophysics , biology , biochemistry , metallurgy , enzyme , implant , medicine , surgery , genetics , gene
Background: Two osteosarcoma‐derived cell lines have been extensively used to investigate the biological events occurring on titanium surfaces: MG63 and Saos‐2. However, the behavior of the two lines on different titanium surfaces has never been compared. Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the behavior of MG63 and Saos‐2 cells on two different titanium surfaces, machined and rough (sandblasting and acid‐etched). We compared cell proliferation and morphology, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and secretion of osteocalcin (OC). Results: The most pronounced difference between the two cell lines was that ALP activity in the Saos‐2 cells was 10‐fold higher than in the MG63 cells. The proliferation rate of the MG63 cells was much higher than that of the Saos‐2 cells at all the tested cell concentrations. MG‐63 cells, but not Saos‐2 cells, grown on rough surface titanium proliferated more rapidly than cells grown on machined surfaces. Morphological analysis revealed that Saos‐2 cells and cells grown on the rougher surface, displayed a more mature phenotype. The level of OC secreted by the Saos‐2 cells, but not the MG63 cells, were higher on the rough surface than on the machined surface. Conclusions: This study shows that Saos‐2 cells exhibit a more mature osteoblast phenotype, compared with that of MG63 cells, rendering them a good candidate for an in vitro model of osseointegration.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here