22.08.2013 Views

Barbieri Thesis - BioMedical Materials program (BMM)

Barbieri Thesis - BioMedical Materials program (BMM)

Barbieri Thesis - BioMedical Materials program (BMM)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Chapter 5 – Alkali surface treatment effects<br />

5.3.8. Animal experiments<br />

A total of six samples per material were intramuscularly implanted in six dogs. After<br />

12 weeks, all samples were retrieved and they were surrounded by a thin layer of<br />

connective tissue and then muscle tissue. As shown in the histological overviews<br />

(Figure 9), after 12 weeks of implantation all specimens retained the initial shape and<br />

size of the granules. However, no bone was observed in any of the composites.<br />

Observations at BSEM showed that, as compared to the starting materials, average<br />

thicker apatite layers surrounding M1 and M2 granules could be seen. However, their<br />

increase compared to their starting counterparts was not significant (t–test, p>0.31 for<br />

M1, and p>0.1 for M2) (Table 4, Figure 9). The resulting apatite layers had<br />

significantly different thickness amongst the three materials (ANOVA, p0.2).<br />

5.4. Discussion<br />

We prepared three composites of apatite and 96%mol. L–lactide/4%mol. D–lactide<br />

copolymer having three different levels of surface roughness, which was directly<br />

linked to the topographical disorder. Clashing with our expectances, none of them<br />

supported heterotopic bone formation after twelve weeks intramuscular<br />

implantation in dogs. In fact, we expected that the rougher and topographically more<br />

disordered surfaces (i.e. M2) would have triggered the osteoinduction process<br />

because, consistently with literature, [195, 363] they diminished human bone marrow<br />

stromal stem cell osteoblastic proliferation but increased their osteogenic<br />

differentiation compared to their smoother counterparts (Figure 8). It is suggested that<br />

osteogenic stem cells are anchorage–dependent and they adhere well on nano–<br />

rough surfaces able to adsorb proteins, [153, 362, 367] including fibronectin and vitronectin<br />

that facilitate focal adhesion [371–373] and cytoskeleton reorganization. [374] At the same<br />

time, increased surface roughness is reported to enhance osteogenic<br />

differentiation, [363] probably because such nano–texture can adsorb higher amounts of<br />

112

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!