Methodological Implications on Quantitative Studies of Cytocompatibility in Direct Contact with Bioceramic Surfaces

Abstract:

Cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation are important specific parameters to be evaluated on biocompatibility studies of candidate biomaterials for clinical applications. Several different methodologies have been employed to study, both qualitative and quantitatively, the direct interactions of ceramic materials with cultured mammal and human cells. However, while quantitatively evaluating cell density, viability and metabolic responses to test materials, several methodological challenges may arise, either by impairing the use of some widely applied techniques, or by generating false or conflicting results. In this work, we tested the inherent interference of different representative calcium phosphate ceramic surfaces (stoichiometric dense and porous hydroxyapatite (HA) and cation-substituted apatite tablets) on different tests for quantitative evaluation of osteoblast adhesion and metabolism, either based on direct cell counting after trypsinization, colorimetric assays (XTT, Neutral Red and Crystal Violet) and fluorescence microscopy. Cell adhesion estimation after trypsinization was highly dependent on the time of treatment, and the group with the highest level of estimated adhesion was inverted from 5 to 20 minutes of exposition to trypsin. Both dense and porous HA samples presented high levels of background adsorption of the Crystal Violet dye, impairing cell detection. HA surfaces also were able to adsorb high levels of fluorescent dyes (DAPI and phalloidin-TRITC), generating backgrounds which, in the case of porous HA, impaired cell detection and counting by image processing software (Image Pro Plus 6.0). We conclude that the choice for the most suitable method for cell detection and estimation is highly dependent on very specific characteristics of the studied material, and methodological adaptations on well established protocols must always be carefully taken on consideration.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 493-494)
• Pages: 325-330
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.493-494.325
• Online since: October 2011
• Authors: J.A. Cortês, Elena Mavropoulos, Moema Hausen, Alexandre Rossi, J.M. Granjeiro, Gutemberg Alves
• Keywords: Biocompatibility Testing, Biomaterial, Cell Adhesion, Materials Testing

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-5: Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity (2009) ISO 10993-5: (2009).

DOI: 10.2345/9781570203558

[2] C.J. Kirkpatrick, C. Mittermayer, Theoretical and practical aspects of testing potential biomaterials in vitro, J. Mat. Sci.: Mat. in Med. 1(1) (1990) 9-13.

[3] K. Anselme, Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials, Biomaterials 21 (2000) 667-681.

DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(99)00242-2

[4] M. Bovi, N. Gassler B. Hermanns-Sachweh, Determination of the biocompatibility of biomaterials by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), EMC 2008 14th European Microscopy Congress (2008) 727-728.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-85226-1_364

[5] K.J. McKinlay, C.A. Scotchford, D.M. Grant, J.M. Oliver, and J.R. King, and P.D. Brown, Scanning electron microscopy of biomaterials. In: Electron Microscopy and Analysis 2003: Proceedings of the Institute of Physics Electron Microscopy and Analysis Group Conference, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2003, pp.87-90.

DOI: 10.1201/9781482269130-23

[6] A. Yamamoto, S. Mishima, N. Maruyama, M. Sumita, Quantitative evaluation of cell attachment to glass, polystyrene, and fibronectin- or collagen-coated polystyrene by measurement of cell adhesive shear force and cell detachment energy. J. Biomed. Mat. Res. 50(2) (2000).

DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(200005)50:2<114::aid-jbm4>3.0.co;2-6

[7] F. Chiellini, Perspectives on: In Vitro Evaluation of Biomedical Polymers, J. Bioactive and Compatible Pol. 21(3) (2006) 257-271.

DOI: 10.1177/0883911506064672

[8] I.R. de Lima, G.G. Alves, C.A. Soriano, A.P. Campaneli, T.H. Gasparoto, E.S.R. Junior, L.A. de Sena, A.M. Rossi, J.M. Granjeiro, Understanding the impact of divalent cation substitution on hydroxyapatite: An in vitro multiparametric study on biocompatibility, J. Biomed. Mat. Research. Part A (2011).

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.33126

[9] G. De Deus, A. Canabarro, G.G. Alves, A. Linhares, M.I. Senne, J.M. Granjeiro, Optimal cytocompatibility of a bioceramic nanoparticulate cement in primary human mesenchymal cells, J. Endodont. 35 (2009)1387-90.

DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.022

[10] H.J. Griffiths, J.G. Harvey, J. Dean, J. Curran, A.E. Markaki, T.W. Clyne, Characterisation of Cell Adhesion to Substrate Materials and the Resistance to Enzymatic and Mechanical Cell-Removal, Mechanical Behavior of Biological Materials and Biomaterials Proceedings 1097 (2008).

DOI: 10.1557/proc-1097-gg03-05

[11] W. Kueng, E. Silber, U. Eppenberger, Quantification of cells cultured on 96-well plates, Anal. Biochem. 1821(989)16–9.

DOI: 10.1016/0003-2697(89)90710-0

[12] T.V. Kumari, U. Vasudev, A. Kumar and B. Menon, Cell surface interactions in the study of biocompatibility, Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs 15(2) (2002) 37 – 41.