Next Article in Journal
Protein Degradation and Protection Observed in the Presence of Novel Wound Dressing Components
Previous Article in Journal
Bioactive Polymeric Composites for Tooth Mineral Regeneration: Physicochemical and Cellular Aspects
J. Funct. Biomater. 2011, 2(4), 308-337; doi:10.3390/jfb2040308
Communication

Is Macroporosity Absolutely Required for Preliminary in Vitro Bone Biomaterial Study? A Comparison Between Porous Materials and Flat Materials

1,* , 1,2
,
3,4
 and
2
1 Bioengineering Graduate Program, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon 2327 0271, Hong Kong, China 2 Division of Life Science, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon 2327 0271, Hong Kong, China 3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon 2327 0271, Hong Kong, China 4 National Engineering Research Center for Biomaterials, Sichuan University, 29 Wangjiang Road, Chengdu 610064, China
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 15 August 2011 / Revised: 19 October 2011 / Accepted: 26 October 2011 / Published: 8 November 2011
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1797 KB, 16 November 2011; original version 8 November 2011]   |   Browse Figures

Abstract

Porous materials are highly preferred for bone tissue engineering due to space for blood vessel ingrowth, but this may introduce extra experimental variations because of the difficulty in precise control of porosity. In order to decide whether it is absolutely necessary to use porous materials in in vitro comparative osteogenesis study of materials with different chemistries, we carried out osteoinductivity study using C3H/10T1/2 cells, pluripotent mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), on seven material types: hydroxyapatite (HA), α-tricalcium phosphate (α-TCP) and b-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) in both porous and dense forms and tissue culture plastic. For all materials under test, dense materials give higher alkaline phosphatase gene (Alp) expression compared with porous materials. In addition, the cell density effects on the 10T1/2 cells were assessed through alkaline phosphatase protein (ALP) enzymatic assay. The ALP expression was higher for higher initial cell plating density and this explains the greater osteoinductivity of dense materials compared with porous materials for in vitro study as porous materials would have higher surface area. On the other hand, the same trend of Alp mRNA level (HA > β-TCP > α-TCP) was observed for both porous and dense materials, validating the use of dense flat materials for comparative study of materials with different chemistries for more reliable comparison when well-defined porous materials are not available. The avoidance of porosity variation would probably facilitate more reproducible results. This study does not suggest porosity is not required for experiments related to bone regeneration application, but emphasizes that there is often a tradeoff between higher clinical relevance, and less variation in a less complex set up, which facilitates a statistically significant conclusion. Technically, we also show that the base of normalization for ALP activity may influence the conclusion and there may be ALP activity from serum, necessitating the inclusion of “no cell” control in ALP activity assay with materials. These explain the opposite conclusions drawn by different groups on the effect of porosity.
Keywords: porosity; calcium phosphate; osteoinductivity; in vitro; alkaline phosphatase porosity; calcium phosphate; osteoinductivity; in vitro; alkaline phosphatase
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Share & Cite This Article

Further Mendeley | CiteULike
Export to BibTeX |
EndNote
MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.T.Y.; Chow, K.L.; Wang, K.; Tsang, W.-H. Is Macroporosity Absolutely Required for Preliminary in Vitro Bone Biomaterial Study? A Comparison Between Porous Materials and Flat Materials. J. Funct. Biomater. 2011, 2, 308-337.

View more citation formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Comments

Cited By

[Return to top]
J. Funct. Biomater. EISSN 2079-4983 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert