Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
A Critical Review on Metallic Glasses as Structural Materials for Cardiovascular Stent Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Novel Biomaterials Used in Medical 3D Printing Techniques
Previous Article in Special Issue
Carbon Nano-Allotrope/Magnetic Nanoparticle Hybrid Nanomaterials as T2 Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Applications
Article Menu
Issue 1 (March) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessFeature PaperReview
J. Funct. Biomater. 2018, 9(1), 18;

Modulation of Osteoclast Interactions with Orthopaedic Biomaterials

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, Level 11, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119228, Singapore
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 15 January 2018 / Revised: 11 February 2018 / Accepted: 13 February 2018 / Published: 26 February 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Journal of Functional Biomaterials: Feature Papers 2016)
Full-Text   |   PDF [1660 KB, uploaded 26 February 2018]   |  


Biomaterial integration in bone depends on bone remodelling at the bone-implant interface. Optimal balance of bone resorption by osteoclasts and bone deposition by osteoblasts is crucial for successful implantation, especially in orthopaedic surgery. Most studies examined osteoblast differentiation on biomaterials, yet few research has been conducted to explore the effect of different orthopaedic implants on osteoclast development. This review covers, in detail, the biology of osteoclasts, in vitro models of osteoclasts, and modulation of osteoclast activity by different implant surfaces, bio-ceramics, and polymers. Studies show that surface topography influence osteoclastogenesis. For instance, metal implants with rough surfaces enhanced osteoclast activity, while smooth surfaces resulted in poor osteoclast differentiation. In addition, surface modification of implants with anti-osteoporotic drug further decreased osteoclast activity. In bioceramics, osteoclast development depended on different chemical compositions. Strontium-incorporated bioceramics decreased osteoclast development, whereas higher concentrations of silica enhanced osteoclast activity. Differences between natural and synthetic polymers also modulated osteoclastogenesis. Physiochemical properties of implants affect osteoclast activity. Hence, understanding osteoclast biology and its response to the natural microarchitecture of bone are indispensable to design suitable implant interfaces and scaffolds, which will stimulate osteoclasts in ways similar to that of native bone. View Full-Text
Keywords: osteoclasts; monocytes; osteoblasts; implants; polymers and scaffolds osteoclasts; monocytes; osteoblasts; implants; polymers and scaffolds

Figure 1

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. (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Steffi, C.; Shi, Z.; Kong, C.H.; Wang, W. Modulation of Osteoclast Interactions with Orthopaedic Biomaterials. J. Funct. Biomater. 2018, 9, 18.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



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