Next Article in Journal
Bioactive Polyoxymethylene Composites: Mechanical and Antibacterial Characterization
Previous Article in Journal
Process Optimization, Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing of Aluminum Alloy by Using DP-GMAW Based on Response Surface Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/ma16165717
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Surface Treatment Method Forming New Nano/Micro Hierarchical Structures on Attachment and Proliferation of Osteoblast-like Cells

by
Jae-Seung Im
1,
Hyunsuk Choi
2,
Hyun-Wook An
3,
Tae-Yub Kwon
4 and
Min-Ho Hong
1,*
1
Department of Dental Laboratory Science, College of Health Sciences, Catholic University of Pusan, 57 Oryundae-ro, Geumjeong-gu, Busan 46252, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, 33 Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu 42472, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University, 2177 Dalgubeol-daero, Jung-gu, Daegu 41940, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Dental Biomaterials, School of Dentistry and Institute for Biomaterials Research & Development, Kyungpook National University, 2177 Dalgubeol-daero, Jung-gu, Daegu 41940, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(16), 5717; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16165717
Submission received: 7 July 2023 / Revised: 6 August 2023 / Accepted: 16 August 2023 / Published: 21 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biomaterials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Titanium (Ti) and Ti-based alloys are commonly used in dental implants, and surface modifications of dental implants are important for achieving osseointegration (i.e., direct connection between the implant surface and bone). This study investigated the effect of an eco-friendly etching solution—a hydrogen peroxide–sodium bicarbonate mixture—on the surface properties and contact angles of osteoblast adhesion and proliferation on Ti surfaces. Disk-shaped Ti specimens were prepared using different surface treatments (machining, sandblasting, and sandblasting/acid-etching), and they were immersed in the etching solution and ultrasonically cleaned. Surface characterization was performed using scanning electron microscopy, digital microscopy, contact angle analysis, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. MG-63 osteoblasts were cultured on the specimens, and their adhesion to the specimen surface and proliferation were examined using staining and the MTT assay, respectively. Additional etching with the etching solution caused the formation of nano/micro hierarchical structures, increased surface roughness, and enhanced hydrophilicity. Osteoblast adhesion and proliferation were found to improve on the modified surfaces. The eco-friendly etching method has the potential to enhance the biological properties of Ti implant surfaces and thereby improve dental implant performance.

1. Introduction

Titanium (Ti) and Ti-based alloys are the most commonly used implant materials in the dental field, owing to their excellent mechanical/physical properties and biocompatibility [1]. When dental implants are used, it is important to achieve osseointegration, which refers to the direct connection between the implant surface and living bone without any soft tissue interference [2]. It is known that the surface topography of implants plays a critical role in the interaction between their surface and adjacent bone tissue [3], and early osseointegration is generally achieved through surface modifications, such as the modification of the chemical composition or surface roughness [4,5]. In particular, rough Ti surfaces have been found to elicit better osteoblast responses than smooth ones [6]. Protein/implant and cell/implant interactions are also influenced by the surface morphology of the implant [7].
Structures such as scallops, bulges, and holes that are similar in size to cells can significantly affect osseointegration. The response of cells to microscale surface features, which include changes in their shape, location, and polarization, is known as contact induction [8]. It is widely acknowledged that different levels of surface roughness lead to different cellular responses; for example, micro-rough structures are favorable for cell attachment, while nano-rough structures promote cell differentiation, protein synthesis, and gene expression [9,10]. Moreover, nanoscale surface features have been shown to enhance antimicrobial properties [11,12], and nanomaterial-based antibacterial photodynamic therapy inhibits bacterial-plaque-induced oral diseases [13]. Novel physiologically active and therapeutic dental polymer materials that inhibit periodontal pathogens and biofilms can also suppress periodontitis and protect tooth structure [14] and have high therapeutic potential for reducing the risk of inflammation around implants. In particular, rough surfaces can significantly enhance mechanical interlocking between the implant material and bone tissue, resulting in high stability and strong fixation of the implant.
In the medical field, Ti and its alloys have a lower osteoblast attachment than modified surfaces because of their machined surfaces. In a previous study, faster osteoblast attachment was observed on a modified surface than on smooth, machined, or polished surfaces [15]. The bonding between bone and metal can be strengthened through surface modification, which can be performed using methods such as resorbable blasting media (RBM), sandblasted large-grit acid-etching (SLA), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), plasma spraying, and plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) [16]. The surfaces of Ti and Ti alloy implants are commonly modified through SLA, a process that involves blasting the surface with coarse abrasive particles and then subjecting it to dual acid etching using strong acids [17]. This process produces an isotropic topography with irregularities on the macroscale and interconnected cavities on the micron and sub-micron scale. The enhanced osseointegration properties of the surfaces are believed to result from stronger mechanical interlocking with the surrounding bone, as well as increased surface area, surface energy, protein adsorption, and cell adhesion during the initial stages of wound healing [18,19,20]. Compared with machined implants, Ti surfaces with micro-roughness have been observed to cause variations in the proliferation, differentiation, and secretion patterns of osteogenic cells [21,22,23].
Wennerberg and Albrektsson found that high surface roughness accelerates bone formation [24]. According to studies conducted by Berglundh et al., an implant’s surface should be moderately rough. Hydrophilicity also plays a significant role in implant performance [25]. To enhance an implant surface’s hydrophilicity and bioactivity, methods such as physical, chemical, and biological modifications have been employed [26,27]. Sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces show good implant–cell interactions, which makes them a preferred choice for most dental implants used clinically [28]. The modification of implant surfaces not only enhances bone healing but also improves the primary stability of the implant–bone interface. However, high surface roughness can also increase plaque accumulation [29,30]. Therefore, there is a need for effective implant decontamination strategies that do not involve the alteration of the surface topography to ensure the long-term stability of surface-treated dental implants, especially in patients with compromised conditions [29,30,31].
Among the different surface modification methods, SLA has been the most commercially successful in the field of Ti-based dental implants [32,33]. The presence of micron-sized surface structures facilitates robust mechanical interlocking between the implant and the surrounding bone, resulting in a significantly larger contact area for stable implant fixation [34]. In this method, sandblasted Ti implants with micron and submicron topographies are realized by immersing the implants in an etching solution consisting of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) [3]. However, in the case of Ti-based alloys subjected to SLA, poor osteoblast adhesion in the early stages of the placement of the alloys poses a major problem [32,35]. Furthermore, this technique involves the use of strong acids and heat; hence, it requires long and complex post-etching cleaning processes [3,36].
Recently, an eco-friendly Ti implant surface modification technique was developed. In this technique, a hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)/sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) mixture is used as the immersing solution for Ti etching, instead of strong acids, such as H2SO4 and HCl [3,36]. H2O2/NaHCO3 solution has the advantage of being eco-friendly, and it can prevent the corrosion of alloys; moreover, in the solution, H2O2 is not decomposed by NaHCO3 [37,38]. Simple immersion in the oxidative solution produces reproducible nano/micro structures on Ti implant surfaces without any need for sandblasting [3]. This new technique may be applied to Ti implants subjected to SLA to further enhance the biological properties of their surfaces.
This study tested the null hypothesis that etching with an eco-friendly solution is ineffective. To validate this hypothesis, we analyzed the surface morphology and 3D profile images of specimens, which were obtained using scanning electron microscopy, to determine the effect of additional etching of Ti surfaces subjected to SLA and subsequent treatment (machining or sandblasting) with an H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture on the Ti surface properties. Contact angles and osteoblast adhesion and proliferation on the surfaces were also evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

A total of 60 disk-shaped (diameter: 10 mm; thickness: 3 mm) grade 4 Ti specimens (MEGAGEN Implant Co., Ltd., Daegu, Republic of Korea) were prepared, and they were divided into three groups based on their processing: machined (M), sandblasted (SL), and sandblasted/acid-etched groups. The M group specimens were not subjected to any surface treatment, the SL group specimens were sandblasted with Al2O3 grit with a size of 0.25–0.50 m [39], and the SLA group specimens were sandblasted with Al2O3 grit with a size of 0.25–0.50 m and subjected to acid-etching and subsequent etching with HCl (10–16%)/H2SO4 (68–75%) at a temperature of 80–90 °C [39]. Half of the specimens (10 specimens) in each of the three groups were immersed for 2 h in a 30 wt% H2O2/5 wt% NaHCO3 aqueous mixture at room temperature [3] and classified into new groups (ModM, ModSL, ModSLA) (see Table 1). The different groups of specimens used in this study are listed in Table 1. The etched specimens were ultrasonically cleaned for 15 min in each of three solvents, namely acetone, ethanol, and water, and then air-dried.

2.2. Surface Characterization

Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM, SU8010, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) was used to analyze the surface morphology of the unetched and etched Ti specimens. Specimen morphology was imaged at magnifications of 1000×, 5000×, and 50,000× in the secondary electron mode under high vacuum conditions at an acceleration voltage of 15 kV.
Surface roughness data and 3D images of the specimens were obtained using a digital microscope (VHX-7000, Keyence, Itasca, IL, USA), and the roughness data were analyzed with VHX-H5M software (Keyence, Itasca, IL, USA). The specimen was positioned at a tilt angle of 0° to obtain images with a magnification of 300×. A total of 20 images of size 256 × 256 μm2 were captured and aligned to obtain surface roughness data and 3D images (n = 3) [40]. Three specimens from each group were evaluated by observing ten random spots on each of them, and the average Ra (mean surface profile roughness) and surface texture scan Sa (the center plane average) values were calculated.
The hydrophilicities of the nano-, micro-, and hierarchical micro/nano-structured surfaces were evaluated using the sessile drop method with a contact angle analyzer (Phoenix-MT(A), SEO Co., Ltd., Suwon-si, Republic of Korea). At room temperature, droplets of equal volume (1.0 μL) were dispensed onto the specimen, and the left and right angles were measured (n = 3). The contact angle was analyzed using an image analysis program, Surfaceware 7 software (SEO Co., Ltd., Suwon-si, Republic of Korea). The surface chemistry was investigated using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, Nexsa, Thermofisher, Oxford, UK) with Al Kα radiation. The binding energies for each spectrum were calibrated on the basis of the C 1s spectra at 285.0 eV.

2.3. Cell Culture and Adhesion

The test operation was performed on a clean bench under strict aseptic conditions, and the test samples were subjected to ultraviolet (UV) sterilization for 30 min [41]. The samples were placed in a 24-well plate, and a cell suspension was seeded on them. The plate was then incubated at 37 °C with 5% CO2 for different durations (1 and 24 h) for culturing. After culturing, the samples were washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and fixed with 2% glutaraldehyde at room temperature for 30 min. Subsequently, they were dehydrated (by increasing the concentration of ethanol), dried, immersed in tetramethylsilane for 10 min, and air-dried at room temperature for 1 or 24 h. The dried samples were platinum-coated and observed under a scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM, SU8010, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) at an acceleration voltage of 10 kV and at 2000× magnification.
The morphology of the cells grown on each specimen was determined by staining them. MG-63 human osteoblasts were the cells grown, and 1 × 105 cells were aliquoted and cultured [42]. The cultured cells were stained with green fluorescent Alexa Fluor™ 488 phalloidin (Lot No. M18I049, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bend, OR, USA) and washed with phosphate-buffered saline. Each specimen was stained with ProLong™ Gold Antifade Reagent with DAPI (Lot No. 2305156, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bend, OR, USA) for microscopic observation, mounted on a microscope slide, and observed under a fluorescence microscope (BX43, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) at 400× magnification [43].

2.4. Cell Proliferation

Cell proliferation on the Ti surfaces was evaluated using a modified MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay [39], which was performed according to Annex C of ISO 10993-5 through direct contact [44]. The test operation was carried out on a clean bench under strict aseptic conditions, and the test samples were prepared using UV sterilization for 30 min [41]. Before the test, the cell monolayer culture and its morphology were examined under a microscope. In order to directly expose the test sample, we added portions of the test sample to each well of a 24-well plate, which served as a culture container. Subsequently, a specific amount of cells (4 × 104 cells/well) was evenly pipetted into each well. In the case of the control group, the cell suspension (4 × 104 cells/well) was dispensed into another culture vessel and cultured and incubated at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. After 24 h, the existing culture medium was removed, and a new culture medium was added to the control group. Fresh serum medium was used as the negative control, and a serum medium supplemented with 10% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used as the positive control. The incubation duration was 24 h. After culturing the test group and control group for 24 h, we observed and photographed cell growth inhibition and lysis under a microscope. After imaging of the cultured cell suspension, the existing culture medium was removed, MTT solution was added, and the cell suspension was further incubated at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator for 2 h. The MTT solution was then removed. DMSO was added to each well, and the plate was shaken. The DMSO amount added to the different wells was identical. After the test sample was removed from the incubator, the absorbance was measured at 570 nm with a microplate reader (ELISA analyzer Sunrise, Tecan Trading AG, Männedorf, Switzerland).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

For the surface roughness, contact angle, and cell viability results, Student’s t test was used to assess the significance of differences between the pre-etched surface and the additionally etched surface (α = 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of all groups listed in Table 1. For the M group machined with cutting tools, typical groove pattern images and profiles were obtained, whereas the SL group had a sharp, fractured surface since the sandblasting particles were sprayed onto the surface of milled Ti. The SLA groups showed larger and deeper cavities, which resulted from sandblasting, than the M groups, and small micropores caused by acid-etching [45]. For the machined Ti surfaces that were etched, low-magnification images (1000× and 5000×) showed the microtopography of the surfaces, and high-magnification (50,000×) images clearly revealed the formation of nanostructures on the surfaces [3]. In the additionally etched ModM, ModSL, and ModSLA groups, in addition to cavities and microstructures similar to those found on the SLA surfaces, nanochannels with a comb-like pattern were newly formed [2].
Figure 2A is a side-by-side indication of SEM images of all Ti surfaces and 3D profile images generated from the corresponding SEM images. Figure 2B shows the surface roughness values (Ra and Sa). Figure 3 shows the water contact angles of all Ti specimens. The additional etching significantly increased the Ra and Sa values in all cases (p < 0.05) because of the formation of nano/micro hierarchical structures on the surfaces (Figure 2A,B), but significantly decreased the contact angles (p < 0.05) (Figure 3). Before additional etching, the SLA group showed higher contact angles than the M group. For specimens that were not etched with the eco-friendly solution, the Ti surface was hydrophobic. However, in the case of the groups etched with the eco-friendly solution, the Ti surface became hydrophilic. Furthermore, in these groups, the higher wettability of Ti surfaces treated with the H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture was directly associated with the unique nanotopography of interconnected comb-like nanochannels [36]. Kapil et al. [46] stated that hydrophobic surfaces have a high contact angle, low adhesion, low wettability to water, and low surface free energy. In contrast, hydrophilic surfaces have a low contact angle, high adhesion, high wettability to water, and high surface free energy. The main objective of preparing a superhydrophobic surface is to obtain a nanostructured surface through chemical composition changes to increase the water surface tension on the contact surface. This was because surface wettability was highly dependent on surface energy. High surface wettability improves the interaction between the implant surface and the biological environment and enhances cellular activity [47].
MacDonald et al. [48] and Rupp et al. [49] reported that osseointegration is easily achieved when the wettability of an implant is excellent. An implant reacts with the surrounding tissue fluids in the early stages after its placement, and the adsorption of cell adhesion proteins, such as fibronectin, occurs on its surface. In particular, implants with rough surfaces and high surface energies show high protein adsorption in the initial stages.
Ti-based implants with high surface roughness and a large surface area show high bioactivity. Furthermore, the mechanical stability between the bone and the implant is high after the implant’s placement [50]. In particular, a high surface energy results in a surface morphology that can effectively retain blood clots [51]. Boyan et al. [52] reported that surface roughness influences cell behavior, with rough surfaces promoting the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblastic cells because of high collagen synthesis, and smooth surfaces being more favorable for the attachment of fibroblast and epithelial cells.
Junker et al. [53] defined surface roughness in the range of 1–10 μm as micro-roughness and reported that micro-roughness maximizes the interlocking between the implant surface and mineralized bone. Brett et al. [35] reported that nanometer roughness in the range of 1–100 nm plays an important role in protein adsorption and osteointegration involving osteoblastic cell attachment. In this study, the additionally etched groups showed micro-roughness and comb-like nano/micro-roughness. A moderately rough surface (Sa: 1.0–2.0 μm) has been reported to enhance osteoblast adhesion to Ti implants.
Storing cleaned Ti implants in water to maintain the surface free energy of the TiO2 surface layer can render the implant surfaces chemically active [54]. By contrast, air exposure can immediately reduce the wettability of a clean TiO2 layer, owing to the spontaneous adsorption of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide [54]. The contact angles of the additionally etched SLA surfaces were found to be lower than those of the etched machined surfaces. To minimize the initial hydrophobicity of SLA surfaces caused by microtopography and atmospheric contamination, studies have proposed the use of SLActive surfaces and normal saline as the storage medium. However, there is no strong evidence showing that SLActive is superior to SLA surfaces in immediate and/or early occlusal loading protocols [30].
Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict SEM images showing the morphology of cells cultured on sample surfaces for 1 and 24 h, respectively; the images are shown at 2000× magnification. After 1 h of culture, the cells in every group were similar and circular, and the number of cells was negligible. On the other hand, after 24 h of culture, the cells were spread more uniformly on the entire surface than those cultured for 1 h. Furthermore, the morphology of osteoblasts showed that they were better spread on the additionally etched specimens compared with the cells on the unetched specimens. In particular, the ModSL sample showed a better maintained comb-like microstructure and surface micro-roughness than the ModSLA sample. This shows that treatment with the eco-friendly solution after sandblasting resulted in a superior surface compared to SLA treatment. Previous studies have identified factors contributing to the attachment and proliferation of osteoblasts. Kilpadi et al. [55] reported that the passivation process performed with 20–45% nitric acid according to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F86 protocol can minimize the corrosion of Ti. Furthermore, the cell attachment mechanism can be expected to improve when surface energy is increased. Pan et al. [56] reported that 30% peroxide treatment increased the thickness of the TiO2 layer on a Ti surface. Ti implant surface reacted with Ca/P in body fluids to form a hydroxycarbonated apatite (HCA) layer that promoted mineralization.
Figure 6 shows the results of cell staining before and after etching. Cell shapes were similar in the SL and SLA groups, except for the surface of the M group, before etching. However, after etching, the surfaces of all groups had better cell shapes, and similar to the results of cell adhesion, the surface adhesion after etching was higher than that before etching.
Implant surface treatments have been found to impact bone formation and bone remodeling, and several studies have reported that the roughness of an implant surface has a positive effect on osteoblast activity [57]. Furthermore, through cell response experiments involving osteoblasts, it has been reported that implants with irregular rough surfaces exhibit high cell attachment [31,58].
However, only a limited number of studies have directly compared sandblasted surfaces with sandblasted and etched surfaces [25]. Several studies that have investigated osteoblast differentiation associated with high surface micro-roughness appear to have focused on machined or polished Ti surfaces. They considered different micro-roughness levels of surfaces of different groups (such as the machined group and sandblasted group) subjected to various surface treatments [59]. On the other hand, studies that have directly compared the effect of etched surfaces with that of sandblasted and etched surfaces on osteoblast behavior have found higher osteoblast differentiation on etched surfaces [60].
Figure 7 shows the cell viability results, expressed by the optical density at 570 nm, for all Ti specimens. On day 1, the additional etching did not show any increased cell survival results compared with the unetched conditions (p > 0.05). These findings indicate that the additional etching and consequently the formation of nano/micro hierarchical structures on the Ti surfaces (SLA as well as machined) definitely enhanced human osteoblast proliferation.
These results agree with the results of Conserva et al. [61], who found higher differentiation after additional eco-friendly solution etching compared with SLA surfaces. Studies have also investigated the effect of implant surface properties on cell attachment and proliferation. Rosalez-Leal et al. [62] and Keller et al. [60] observed higher attachment of cells on an SLA surface after one hour. However, when compared with a surface etched with an eco-friendly solution, higher proliferation was observed after 24 h. Except for the study of Keller et al., who evaluated osteoblast attachment at a single time point (1 h), our findings corroborate the results of previous studies [60].
The binding energies of Ti 2p, O 1s, and C 1s core levels are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The figures show a comparison of the intensities of the different elements. The O 1s peak of TiO2 was observed around 530 eV for all specimens, and the Ti 2p peak was observed around 458 eV, with a sub-peak around 464 eV. The C 1s peak, supposed to originate from a hydrocarbon (C-H), was observed around 285 eV, with a sub-peak that was attributed to a carbonyl group being observed around 288 eV. Kang et al. [63] noted that the standard binding energies of Ti implant surfaces were as follows: Ti 2p: 458.7 eV; O 1s: 530.1 eV; and C 1s: 284.8 eV. They also observed that when an additional cleaning treatment was performed, the Ti 2p peak split into Ti 2p1 and Ti 2p3 peaks. In other words, the Ti 2p peak was separated into Ti 2p1 and Ti 2p3 peaks at 458.7 ± 0.3 eV for TiO2, 457.1 ± 0.3 eV for Ti2O3, and 455.3 ± 0.1 eV for TiO. Therefore, the binding energy of the Ti 2p peak measured in the current study ranged from 458.4 to 459.2 eV, indicating the formation of a TiO2 oxide layer.
Table 2 shows the relative atomic concentrations (at%) and the binding energy of the surface residual elements in the specimens subjected to different surface treatments. The amount of O was the largest in the SL group, probably because of the absorption of O from the air during the sandblasting treatment, followed by the ModSL group. The amount of residual C was the largest in the M group and in the unetched specimens, and it was smallest in the SL and Mod SL groups. The main peaks were Ti and O, while the weak peak was C and resulted from carbon contamination. These observations were consistent with the results of XPS analysis of the surfaces of all specimens.
The residual amount of C in the ModSL group etched with the eco-friendly solution after sandblasting was lower than that in the M and SLA groups, while the residual amount of O was higher. Therefore, the production of TiO2 was higher in the ModSL group, which would have increased the attachment area and the speed of osteoblast proliferation. Consequently, the rate of osseointegration was increased because of the migration and proliferation of osteoblasts, and when an implant treated with eco-friendly solution etching after sandblasting was implanted, its initial stability improved, and the interfacial contact surface with bone tissue increased. This resulted in the removal torque value increasing to guarantee the long-term success rate of the implant. The combination of sandblasting treatment and eco-friendly etching treatment has the potential to replace the existing SLA treatment method involving a strong acid mixture (HCl/H2SO4).
When the Ti specimen was treated with the eco-friendly H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture, it exhibited a nanoscale surface morphology with a comb-like pattern, and the surface roughness and wettability increased. Previous studies, including those of Kim et al. [3], have suggested that the removal effects of Ti surface residues could be expected from the treatment of a Ti alloy specimen with an eco-friendly H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture. In other words, a surface cleaning effect without any change in the surface chemical composition was observed, as H2O2 is easily decomposed into H2O and O with the aid of NaHCO3. Moreover, H2O2 in the eco-friendly mixture caused the formation of a hierarchical structure in which micro-pits and comb-like nano-channels were formed. Furthermore, the formation of the hydroxyl radical (OH), a strong oxidizer, resulted in the Ti surface being oxidized, which increased cell affinity, wettability, and hydrophilicity [36].
The mechanism underlying the formation of nano/micro-textures on a Ti surface using the H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture is not yet fully understood. It is known that NaHCO3 is a slightly alkaline powder with a pH of around 8, and H2O2 is a strong oxidizer. When NaHCO3 is added to a 30% H2O2 solution with a stabilizer, the pH of the resultant changes significantly from 1.9 to 7.8. It is believed that when a Ti disk is submerged in this mildly alkaline mixture, H2O2 reacts with Ti ions, especially Ti3+, to generate hydroxyl radicals, perhydroxyl radicals, and superoxide anion radicals. Among these reaction products, the hydroxyl radical is the most potent oxidizer and is likely responsible for the observed surface oxidation. Regardless of the cause of oxidation, this innovative oxidative solution shows promise as an alternative to highly concentrated acid solutions for use in Ti surface modification [36].
This study examined whether the acid-etching process, which appears to be problematic in the commonly used surface treatment process, can be replaced with an eco-friendly solution by comparing the ModSL specimen (etched with the eco-friendly H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture after sandblasting) with the ModSLA specimen (subjected to SLA and etched with HCl/H2SO4, a commonly used strong acid mixture). It was found that the biological surface characteristics of the former were somewhat better than those of the latter. Therefore, the eco-friendly H2O2/NaHCO3 mixture has the potential to replace the currently used HCl/H2SO4.
The limitations of our study include the evaluation of surface energy changes through a method that has limitations called the contact angle method. This method, although commonly used, may not fully capture the complexity of surface interactions. Furthermore, the analysis of cell behavior was limited to single cells, whose behavior may not be similar to the collective behavior of multiple cells in a biological context. Additionally, there were experimental constraints in our study. For instance, cell viability experiments were conducted for a relatively short duration of 24 h, which might not be sufficient for the capture of long-term effects. Another limitation is that the study focused on a specific cell type, and the results may not be generalizable to other cell types or tissues. We highlight these limitations and experimental constraints so that the reader would be better informed to assess the scope and implications of this study.

4. Conclusions

The findings of this in vitro study suggest that nanoscale topographies with a comb-like pattern were formed on Ti surfaces optimized through etching with an eco-friendly solution. Additional etching with the etching solution caused the formation of nano/micro hierarchical structures, increased surface roughness, and enhanced hydrophilicity. Enhanced osteoblast adhesion and proliferation were observed on the modified surfaces. The eco-friendly etching method has the potential to enhance the biological properties of Ti implant surfaces and thereby improve dental implant performance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Although additional etching of the SLA surface appears to be a promising approach, further research is required to comprehensively assess its merits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-S.I., T.-Y.K. and M.-H.H.; methodology, H.C., H.-W.A. and T.-Y.K.; formal analysis, J.-S.I., H.C., H.-W.A. and M.-H.H.; investigation, J.-S.I. and T.-Y.K.; resources, M.-H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-S.I., H.C. and M.-H.H.; visualization, J.-S.I. and H.-W.A.; funding acquisition, M.-H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2022R1F1A1066517).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank MEGAGEN Implants Co., Ltd. for providing and supporting samples for this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Aziz-Kerrzo, M.; Conroy, K.G.; Fenelon, A.M.; Farrell, S.T. Electrochemical studies on the stability and corrosion resistance of titanium-based implant materials. Biomaterials 2001, 22, 1531–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Choi, M.J.; Min, B.K.; Hong, M.H.; Lee, H.J.; Son, J.S.; Kwon, T.Y. Influence of oxidative etching solution temperatures on the surface roughness and wettability of a titanium alloy. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2019, 19, 1044–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kim, I.H.; Im, J.S.; Lee, M.H.; Min, B.K.; Son, J.S.; Hong, M.H.; Kwon, T.Y. Formation of nano/micro hierarchical structures on titanium alloy surface by a novel etching solution. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2020, 20, 4529–4532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lamolle, S.F.; Monjo, M.; Rubert, M.; Haugen, H.J.; Lyngstadaas, S.P.; Ellingsen, J.E. The effect of hydrofluoric acid treatment of titanium surface on nanostructural and chemical changes and the growth of MC3T3-E1 cells. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Monjo, M.; Lamolle, S.F.; Lyngstadaas, S.P.; Ronold, H.J.; Ellingsen, J.E. In vivo expression of osteogenic markers and bone mineral density at the surface of fluoride-modified titanium implants. Biomaterials 2008, 29, 3771–3780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhao, L.; Mei, S.; Chu, P.K.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z. The influence of hierarchical hybrid micro/nano-textured titanium surface with titania nanotubes on osteoblast functions. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 5072–5082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, J.; Xie, Y.; Zuo, J.; Li, J.; Wei, Q.; Yu, Z.; Tang, Z. Cell responses to titanium treated by a sandblast-free method for implant applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2017, 78, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yoshinari, M.; Watanabe, Y.; Ohtsuka, Y.; Dérand, T. Solubility control of thin calcium-phosphate coating with rapid heating. J. Dent. Res. 1997, 76, 1485–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gittens, R.A.; McLachlan, T.; Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Cai, Y.; Berner, S.; Tannenbaum, R.; Schwartz, Z.; Sandhage, K.H.; Boyan, B.D. The effects of combined micron-/submicron-scale surface roughness and nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation. Biomaterials 2011, 3213, 3395–3403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gittens, R.A.; Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Cheng, A.; Anderson, D.M.; McLachlan, T.; Stephan, I.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J.; Sandhage, K.H.; Fedorov, A.G.; Rupp, F.; et al. The roles of titanium surface micro/nanotopography and wettability on the differential response of human osteoblast lineage cells. Acta. Biomater. 2013, 9, 6268–6277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Truong, V.K.; Lapovok, R.; Estrin, Y.S.; Rundell, S.; Wang, J.Y.; Fluke, C.J.; Crawford, R.J.; Ivanova, E.P. The influence of nano-scale surface roughness on bacterial adhesion to ultrafine-grained titanium. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 3674–3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Puckett, S.D.; Taylor, E.; Raimondo, T.; Webster, T.J. The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Qi, M.; Chi, M.; Sun, X.; Xie, X.; Weir, M.D.; Oates, T.W.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, L.; Bai, Y.; Xu, H.H. Novel nanomaterial-based antibacterial photodynamic therapies to combat oral bacterial biofilms and infectious diseases. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 6937–6956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chi, M.; Qi, M.A.L.; Wang, P.; Weir, M.D.; Meol, M.A.; Sun, X.; Dong, B.; Li, C.; Wu, J.; Wang, L.; et al. Novel Bioactive and Therapeutic Dental Polymeric Materials to Inhibit Periodontal Pathogens and Biofilms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Von Wilmowsky, C.; Moest, T.; Nkenke, E.; Stelzle, F.; Schlegel, K.A. Implants in bone: Part, I. A current overview about tissue response, surface modifications and future perspectives. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 18, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Elinor, Z.N.; Svetlana, L.; Alex, L.; Barbara, K.; Alexander, S. The study of hydroxyapatite growth kinetics on CP-Ti and TI65Zr treated by plasma electrolytic oxidation process. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 24, 2169–2186. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hulya, Y.; Kristina, B.; Stavropoulos, A. Titanium implants surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2022, 8, 1315–1321. [Google Scholar]
  18. Schliephake, H.; Aref, A.; Scharnweber, D.; Bierbaum, S.; Sewing, A. Effect of modifications of dual acid-etched implant surfaces on peri-implant bone formation. Part I: Organic coatings. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2009, 20, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Novaes, A.B., Jr.; de Souza, S.L.S.; de Barros, R.R.M.; Pereira, K.K.Y.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A. Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration. Braz. Dent. J. 2010, 21, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Webster, T.J.; Ross, A.P. Anodizing color coded anodized Ti6Al4V medical devices for increasing bone cell functions. Int. J. Nanomed. 2013, 8, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jemat, A.; Ghazali, M.J.; Razali, M.; Otsuka, Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 791725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Le Guehennec, L.; Lopez-Heredia, M.-A.; Enkel, B.; Weiss, P.; Amouriq, Y.; Layrolle, P. Osteoblastic cell behaviour on different titanium implant surfaces. Acta. Biomater. 2008, 4, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stoilov, M.; Stoilov, L.; Enkling, N.; Stark, H.; Winter, J.; Marder, M.; Kraus, D. Effects of Different Titanium Surface Treatments on Adhesion, Proliferation and Differentiation of Bone Cells: An In Vitro Study. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wennerberg, A.; Albrektsson, T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: A systematic review. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2009, 20, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Berglundh, T.; Gotfredsen, K.; Zitzmann, N.U.; Lang, N.P.; Lindhe, J. Spontaneous progression of ligature induced peri-implantitis at implants with different surface roughness: An experimental study in dogs. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2007, 18, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lang, N.P.; Salvi, G.E.; Huynh-Ba, G.; Ivanovski, S.; Donos, N.; Bosshardt, D.D. Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2011, 22, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sartoretto, S.C.; Alves, A.T.N.N.; Resende, R.F.B.; Calasans-Maia, J.; Granjeiro, J.; Calasans-Maia, M.D. Early osseointegration driven by the surface chemistry and wettability of dental implants. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2015, 23, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chopra, D.; Jayasree, A.; Guo, T.; Gulati, K.; Ivanovski, S. Advancing dental implants: Bioactive and therapeutic modifications of zirconia. Bioact. Mater. 2022, 13, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shalabi, M.; Gortemaker, A.; Hof, M.V.; Jansen, J.; Creugers, N. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: A systematic review. J. Dent. Res. 2006, 85, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chambrone, L.; Shibli, J.A.; Mercúrio, C.E.; Cardoso, B.; Preshaw, P.M. Efficacy of standard (SLA) and modified sandblasted and acid-etched (SLActive) dental implants in promoting immediate and/or early occlusal loading protocols: A systematic review of prospective studies. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2015, 26, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bowers, K.T.; Keller, J.C.; Randolph, B.A.; Wick, D.G.; Michaels, C.M. Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 1992, 7, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Buser, D.; Broggini, N.; Wieland, M.; Schenk, R.K.; Denzer, A.J.; Cochran, D.L.; Hoffmann, B.; Lussi, A.; Steinemann, S.G. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J. Dent. Res. 2004, 83, 529–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Schwarz, F.; Herten, M.; Sager, M.; Wieland, M.; Dard, M.; Becker, J. Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: A pilot study in dogs. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2007, 34, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Le Guehennec, L.; Soueidan, A.; Layrolle, P.; Amouriq, Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brett, P.M.; Harle, J.; Salih, V.; Mihoc, R.; Olsen, I.; Jones, F.H.; Tonetti, M. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone 2004, 35, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, I.H.; Son, J.S.; Choi, S.H.; Kim, K.H.; Kwon, T.Y. Nano- and micro-scale oxidative patterning of titanium implant surfaces for improved surface wettability. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2016, 16, 1883–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Herbert, H.B.; Park, A.H.; Oloman, C.W. Stability of hydrogen peroxide in sodium carbonate solutions. TAPPI J. 2000, 83, 94. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nagoya, Y.; Kenichi, Y. Countermeasure for corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement of Ni-Ti superelastic alloy in acidic fluoride solution by adding sodium bicarbonate and hydrogen peroxide. Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 419–426. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, C.-X.; Ma, T.; Wang, M.-Y.; Guo, H.-Z.; Ge, X.-Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, Y. Facile distribution of an alkaline microenvironment improves human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell osteogenesis on a titanium surface through the ITG/FAK/ALP pathway. Int. J. Implants Dent. 2021, 7, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Krzysztof, R.; Tadeusz, H.; Wojciech, K.; Katarzyna, T.; Steinar, R.; Sofia, G.; Patrick, C.; Winfried, M.; Dalibor, M.; Kornel, P.; et al. Porous coating containing copper and phosphorus obtained by plasma electrolytic oxidation of titanium. Materials 2020, 13, 828–840. [Google Scholar]
  41. Li, L.; Mak, K.Y.; Shi, J.; Leung, C.H.; Wong, C.M.; Leung, C.W.; Mak, C.S.K.; Chan, K.Y.; Chan, N.M.M.; Wu, E.X.; et al. Sterilization on dextran-coated iron oxide nanoparticles: Effects of autoclaving, filtration, UV irradiation, and ethanol treatment. Microelectron. Eng. 2013, 111, 310–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hao, L.; Lawrence, J.; Phua, Y.F.; Chian, K.S.; Lim, G.C.; Zheng, H.Y. Enhanced human osteoblast cell adhesion and proliferation on 316 LS stainless steel by means CO2 laser surface treatment. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Appl. Biomater. 2004, 73, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boulter, E.; Estrach, S.; Tissot, F.S.; Hennrich, M.L.; Tosello, L.; Cailleteau, L.; de la Ballina, L.R.; Pisano, S.; Gavin, A.-C.; Féral, C.C. Cell metabolism regulates integrin mechanosensing via an SLC3A2-dependent sphingolipid biosynthesis pathway. Nat. Commun. 2018, 19, 4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. ISO 10993-5:2009; Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices-Part5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  45. Rupp, F.; Scheideler, L.; Olshanska, N.; de Wild, M.; Wieland, M.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2006, 76, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kapil, M.; Shantanu, B. Superhydrophobic surfaces review: Functional application, fabrication techniques and limitations. J. Micromanuf. 2019, 2, 59–78. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bayrak, M.; Kocak-Oztug, N.A.; Gulati, K.; Cintan, S.; Cifcibasi, E. Influence of Clinical Decontamination Techniques on the Surface Characteristics of SLA Titanium Implant. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 4481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. MacDonald, D.E.; Deo, N.; Markovic, B.; Stranick, M.; Somasundaram, P. Adsorption and dissolution behavior of human plasma fibronectin on thermally and modified titanium dioxide particles. Biomaterials 2002, 23, 1269–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rupp, F.; Scheideler, L.; Rehbein, D.; Axmann, D.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 1429–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wennerberg, A.; Albrektsson, T.; Andersson, B.; Krol, J.J. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 1995, 6, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Davies, J.E. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J. Dent. Educ. 2003, 67, 932–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Boyan, B.; Dean, D.; Lohmann, C.; Cochran, D.; Sylvia, V.; Schwartz, Z. The titanium-bone cell interface in vitro: The role of the surface in promoting osteointegration. In Titanium in Medicine; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 561–585. [Google Scholar]
  53. Junker, R.; Dimakis, A.; Thoneick, M.; Jansen, J.A. Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: A systematic review. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2009, 20, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zinelis, S.; Silikas, N.; Thomas, A.; Syres, K.; Eliades, G. Surface characterization of SLActive dental implants. Eur. J. Esthet. Dent. 2012, 7, 72–92. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kilpadi, D.V.; Raikar, G.N.; Liu, J.; Lemons, J.E.; Vohra, Y.; Gregory, J.C. Effect of surface treatment on unalloyed titanium analyses. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1998, 40, 646–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pan, J.; Liao, H.; Leygraf, C.; Thierry, D.; Li, J. Variation of oxide films on titanium induced by osteoblast-like cell culture and influence of an H2O2 pretreatment. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1998, 40, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oh, T.J.; Yoon, J.; Meraw, S.J.; Giannobile, W.V.; Wang, H.L. Healing and osseointegration of submerged microtextured oral implants. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2003, 14, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Martin, J.; Schwartz, Z.; Hummert, T. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein syn thesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1995, 29, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, M.J.; Choi, M.U.; Kim, C.W. Activation of phospholipase D1 by surface roughness of titanium in MG63 osteoblast-like cell. Biomaterials 2006, 27, 5502–5511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Keller, J.C.; Schneider, G.B.; Stanford, C.M.; Kellogg, B. Effects of implant microtopography on osteoblast cell attachment. Implants Dent. 2003, 12, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Conserva, E.; Menini, M.; Ravera, G.; Pera, P. The role of surface implant treatments on the biological behavior of SaOS-2 osteoblast-like cells. An in vitro comparative study. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 2013, 24, 880–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Rosales-Leal, J.I.; Rodríguez-Valverde, M.A.; Mazzaglia, G.; Ramón-Torregrosa, P.J.; Díaz-Rodríguez, L.; García-Martínez, O.; Vallecillo-Capillaa, M.; Ruiz, C.; Cabrerizo-Vílchez, M.A. Effect of roughness, wettability and morphology of engineered titanium surfaces on osteoblast-like cell adhesion. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2010, 365, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kang, B.S.; Sul, Y.T.; Oh, S.T.; Lee, H.J.; Albrektsson, T. XPS, AES and SEM analysis of recent dental implants. Acta Biomater. 2009, 5, 2222–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 16 05717 g001
Figure 1. Surface morphology of the Ti alloys used in this study: (a) 1000× magnification, (b) 5000× magnification, and (c) 50,000× magnification. Scale bars are (a) 50, (b) 10, and (c) 1 μm. M: machined surface; ModM: machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SL: sandblasted surface; ModSL: sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface; ModSLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Figure 1. Surface morphology of the Ti alloys used in this study: (a) 1000× magnification, (b) 5000× magnification, and (c) 50,000× magnification. Scale bars are (a) 50, (b) 10, and (c) 1 μm. M: machined surface; ModM: machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SL: sandblasted surface; ModSL: sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface; ModSLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Materials 16 05717 g001
Materials 16 05717 g002
Figure 2. Three-dimensional profile and quantitative topographical evaluations of Ti surfaces. (A) Three-dimensional scanning images constructed from digital microscope images; (B) results of profile analysis in which Ra (average roughness of profile) and Sa (the center plane average) were evaluated. M: machined surface; ModM: machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SL: sandblasted surface; ModSL: sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface; ModSLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching (* p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Three-dimensional profile and quantitative topographical evaluations of Ti surfaces. (A) Three-dimensional scanning images constructed from digital microscope images; (B) results of profile analysis in which Ra (average roughness of profile) and Sa (the center plane average) were evaluated. M: machined surface; ModM: machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SL: sandblasted surface; ModSL: sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface; ModSLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching (* p < 0.05).
Materials 16 05717 g002
Materials 16 05717 g003
Figure 3. Contact angle graphs and images of the Ti surfaces. M: machined surface; ModM: machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SL: sandblasted surface; ModSL: sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface; ModSLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching (* p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Contact angle graphs and images of the Ti surfaces. M: machined surface; ModM: machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SL: sandblasted surface; ModSL: sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching; SLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface; ModSLA: sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching (* p < 0.05).
Materials 16 05717 g003
Materials 16 05717 g004
Figure 4. Typical SEM images showing adhesion of osteoblasts cultured for 1 h on grade 4 Ti surfaces at 2000× magnification: (a) machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Figure 4. Typical SEM images showing adhesion of osteoblasts cultured for 1 h on grade 4 Ti surfaces at 2000× magnification: (a) machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Materials 16 05717 g004
Materials 16 05717 g005
Figure 5. Typical SEM images showing adhesion of osteoblasts cultured for 24 h on grade 4 Ti surfaces at 2000× magnification: (a) machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Figure 5. Typical SEM images showing adhesion of osteoblasts cultured for 24 h on grade 4 Ti surfaces at 2000× magnification: (a) machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Materials 16 05717 g005
Materials 16 05717 g006
Figure 6. Fluorescence images of LIVE/DEAD staining of MG-63 cells that were cultured on grade 4 Ti surfaces at 200× magnification: (a) machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Figure 6. Fluorescence images of LIVE/DEAD staining of MG-63 cells that were cultured on grade 4 Ti surfaces at 200× magnification: (a) machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Materials 16 05717 g006
Materials 16 05717 g007
Figure 7. Viability of osteoblastic cells cultured on Ti surfaces on day 1 (* p < 0.05).
Figure 7. Viability of osteoblastic cells cultured on Ti surfaces on day 1 (* p < 0.05).
Materials 16 05717 g007
Materials 16 05717 g008
Figure 8. O 1s spectra (A) and C 1s spectra (B) of all types of Ti surfaces. (a) Machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Figure 8. O 1s spectra (A) and C 1s spectra (B) of all types of Ti surfaces. (a) Machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Materials 16 05717 g008
Materials 16 05717 g009
Figure 9. Ti 2P spectra of all types of Ti surfaces. (a) Machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Figure 9. Ti 2P spectra of all types of Ti surfaces. (a) Machined surface, (b) machined surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (c) sandblasted surface, (d) sandblasted surface + eco-friendly solution etching, (e) sandblasted/acid-etched surface, and (f) sandblasted/acid-etched surface + eco-friendly solution etching.
Materials 16 05717 g009
Table 1. Experimental groups of specimens considered in this study.
Table 1. Experimental groups of specimens considered in this study.
Group (n = 10)Surface Treatment
MNo surface treatment
ModMNo surface treatment + eco-friendly solution (a) etching
SLAlumina sandblasted
ModSLAlumina sandblasted + eco-friendly solution etching
SLAAlumina sandblasted + acid-etching
ModSLAAlumina sandblasted + acid-etching + eco-friendly solution etching
(a) 30 wt% H2O2/5 wt% NaHCO3 solution.
Table 2. Binding energy and atomic concentration (at%) for various surface modification treatments.
Table 2. Binding energy and atomic concentration (at%) for various surface modification treatments.
ElementMachinedSandblastedSLA
MModMSLModSLSLAModSLA
at%BEat%BEat%BEat%BEat%BEat%BE
Ti 2p5.2459.019.6458.616.3458.117.7458.114.0458.221.0458.1
O 1s24.7530.846.2531.756.0530.354.2530.744.0531.847.5531.4
C 1s69.9284.934.1285.327.5284.827.9285.041.9285.231.3285.0
BE: Binding Energy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Im, J.-S.; Choi, H.; An, H.-W.; Kwon, T.-Y.; Hong, M.-H. Effects of Surface Treatment Method Forming New Nano/Micro Hierarchical Structures on Attachment and Proliferation of Osteoblast-like Cells. Materials 2023, 16, 5717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16165717

AMA Style

Im J-S, Choi H, An H-W, Kwon T-Y, Hong M-H. Effects of Surface Treatment Method Forming New Nano/Micro Hierarchical Structures on Attachment and Proliferation of Osteoblast-like Cells. Materials. 2023; 16(16):5717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16165717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Im, Jae-Seung, Hyunsuk Choi, Hyun-Wook An, Tae-Yub Kwon, and Min-Ho Hong. 2023. "Effects of Surface Treatment Method Forming New Nano/Micro Hierarchical Structures on Attachment and Proliferation of Osteoblast-like Cells" Materials 16, no. 16: 5717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16165717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop