Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
G. Salvi, D. Bosshardt, N. Lang, I. Abrahamsson, T. Berglundh, J. Lindhe, S. Ivanovski, N. Donos (2015)
Temporal sequence of hard and soft tissue healing around titanium dental implants.Periodontology 2000, 68 1
T. Zdeblick, F. Phillips (2003)
Interbody Cage DevicesSpine, 28
K. Hotchkiss, G. Reddy, S. Hyzy, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan, R. Olivares-Navarrete (2016)
Titanium surface characteristics, including topography and wettability, alter macrophage activation.Acta biomaterialia, 31
Jefferson Abaricia, Arth Shah, Manotri Chaubal, K. Hotchkiss, R. Olivares-Navarrete (2020)
Wnt signaling modulates macrophage polarization and is regulated by biomaterial surface properties.Biomaterials, 243
Mohamed Elkazaz, Marwan Koptan, H. Al-Shatoury, Hazem Alkosha, A. Abou-Madawi (2020)
Cervical Intervertebral Cages: Past, Present, Innovations, and Future Trends with Review of the Literature., 35
J. Martin, J. Martin, Z. Schwartz, T. Hummert, D. Schraub, J. Simpson, J. Lankford, D. Dean, D. Cochran, B. Boyan (1995)
Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63).Journal of biomedical materials research, 29 3
G. Girasole, G. Muro, A. Mintz, J. Chertoff (2013)
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion rates in patients using a novel titanium implant and demineralized cancellous allograft bone spongeInternational Journal of Spine Surgery, 7
(2011)
Subsidence and Nonunion after Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) CageClin. Orthop. Surg., 3
Spine Market: Data & Infographics-Orthoworld
B. Boyan, L. Bonewald, E. Paschalis, C. Lohmann, C. Lohmann, Jennifer Rosser, D. Cochran, D. Dean, Z. Schwartz, A. Boskey, A. Boskey (2002)
Osteoblast-Mediated Mineral Deposition in Culture is Dependent on Surface MicrotopographyCalcified Tissue International, 71
P. Schaffner, M. Dard (2003)
Structure and function of RGD peptides involved in bone biologyCellular and Molecular Life Sciences CMLS, 60
(2022)
Data & Infographics—Orthoworld
P. Branemark, R. Adell, T. Albrektsson, U. Lekholm, S. Lundkvist, B. Rockler (1983)
Osseointegrated titanium fixtures in the treatment of edentulousness.Biomaterials, 4 1
Chee Ho, S. Ng, Y. Yoon (2015)
A review on 3D printed bioimplantsInternational Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 16
(2022)
https://journals
Jefferson Abaricia, Negin Farzad, Tyler Heath, Jamelle Simmons, Lais Morandini, R. Olivares-Navarrete (2021)
Control of innate immune response by biomaterial surface topography, energy, and stiffness.Acta biomaterialia
M. Kashii, K. Kitaguchi, T. Makino, T. Kaito (2020)
Comparison in the same intervertebral space between titanium-coated and uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion surgery.Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association
Ethan Lotz, R. Olivares-Navarrete, S. Hyzy, S. Berner, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan (2017)
Comparable responses of osteoblast lineage cells to microstructured hydrophilic titanium–zirconium and microstructured hydrophilic titaniumClinical Oral Implants Research, 28
(1976)
Poly-ether-ether-ketone promotes fibrosis and microtextured titanium promotes osteogenic factors
P. Branemark (1983)
Osseointegration and its experimental background.The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 50 3
Ethan Lotz, R. Olivares-Navarrete, S. Berner, B. Boyan, Z. Schwartz (2016)
Osteogenic response of human MSCs and osteoblasts to hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanostructured titanium implant surfaces.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 104 12
T. Hefti, M. Frischherz, N. Spencer, H. Hall, F. Schlottig (2010)
A comparison of osteoclast resorption pits on bone with titanium and zirconia surfaces.Biomaterials, 31 28
Jefferson Abaricia, Arth Shah, R. Olivares-Navarrete (2021)
Substrate stiffness induces neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation through focal adhesion kinase activation.Biomaterials, 271
Ricardo Trindade, T. Albrektsson, A. Wennerberg (2015)
Current concepts for the biological basis of dental implants: foreign body equilibrium and osseointegration dynamics.Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America, 27 2
R. Olivares-Navarrete, S. Hyzy, Mark Berg, J. Schneider, K. Hotchkiss, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan (2014)
Osteoblast Lineage Cells Can Discriminate Microscale Topographic Features on Titanium–Aluminum–Vanadium SurfacesAnnals of Biomedical Engineering, 42
N. Hallab, Joshua Jacobs, Jonathan Black (2000)
Hypersensitivity to metallic biomaterials: a review of leukocyte migration inhibition assays.Biomaterials, 21 13
A. Jemat, M. Ghazali, M. Razali, Yuichi Otsuka (2015)
Surface Modifications and Their Effects on Titanium Dental ImplantsBioMed Research International, 2015
Ricardo Trindade, T. Albrektsson, S. Galli, Zdenka Prgomet, P. Tengvall, A. Wennerberg (2018)
Bone Immune Response to Materials, Part I: Titanium, PEEK and Copper in Comparison to Sham at 10 Days in Rabbit TibiaJournal of Clinical Medicine, 7
Dolly Holt, D. Grainger (2012)
Demineralized bone matrix as a vehicle for delivering endogenous and exogenous therapeutics in bone repair.Advanced drug delivery reviews, 64 12
L. HyzySharon, Olivares-NavarreteRene, OrtmanSarah, D. BoyanBarbara, SchwartzZvi (2017)
Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 Alters Osteogenesis and Anti-Inflammatory Profiles of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Induced by Microtextured Titanium In Vitro*Tissue Engineering Part A
Yuta Nakanishi, K. Naito, T. Yamagata, M. Yoshimura, N. Shimokawa, M. Nishikawa, K. Ohata, T. Takami (2020)
Safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using titanium-coated polyetheretherketone stand-alone cages: Multicenter prospective study of incidence of cage subsidenceJournal of Clinical Neuroscience, 74
Macrophage response to hydrophilic
Peter Campbell, D. Cavanaugh, P. Nunley, P. Utter, Eubulus Kerr, Rishi Wadhwa, M. Stone (2020)
PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence.Neurosurgical focus, 49 3
Original Article Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2011;3:16-23 • doi:10.4055/cios.2011.3.1.16 Subsidence and Nonunion after Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion Using a Stand-Alone
Zehao Jing, Teng Zhang, Peng Xiu, H. Cai, Qingguang Wei, Daoyang Fan, Xinhong Lin, Chun-Li Song, Zhongjun Liu (2020)
Functionalization of 3D-printed titanium alloy orthopedic implants: a literature reviewBiomedical Materials, 15
A. Turlybekuly, A. Pogrebnjak, L. Sukhodub, L. Sukhodub, A. Kistaubayeva, I. Savitskaya, D. Shokatayeva, O. Bondar, Z. Shaĭmardanov, S. Plotnikov, B. Shaimardanova, I. Digel (2019)
Synthesis, characterization, in vitro biocompatibility and antibacterial properties study of nanocomposite materials based on hydroxyapatite-biphasic ZnO micro- and nanoparticles embedded in Alginate matrix.Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications, 104
Mtk Mulari, Q. Qu, P. Härkönen, H. Väänänen (2004)
Osteoblast-like Cells Complete Osteoclastic Bone Resorption and Form New Mineralized Bone Matrix In VitroCalcified Tissue International, 75
D. Buser, Simone Janner, J. Wittneben, U. Brägger, C. Ramseier, G. Salvi (2012)
10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients.Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 14 6
B. Boyan, B. Boyan, Z. Schwartz, Z. Schwartz, Z. Schwartz, C. Lohmann, C. Lohmann, V. Sylvia, D. Cochran, D. Dean, J. Puzas (2003)
Pretreatment of bone with osteoclasts affects phenotypic expression of osteoblast‐like cellsJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 21
A. Theron, G. Tintinger, R. Anderson (2011)
Harmful Interactions of Non-Essential Heavy Metals with Cells of the Innate Immune SystemJournal of Clinical Toxicology, 2013
M. Canseco, Brian PhD, P. Md, S. Md, MD Timmons, H. Bs, BS Nachwalter, MD Lee, MD Kurd, MD Anderson, MD Rihn, MD Hilibrand, M. Kepler, MD Vaccaro, M. PhD (2021)
PEEK Versus Titanium Static Interbody CagesClinical Spine Surgery, 34
Tarek Awadly, Gang Wu, M. Ayad, I. Radi, D. Wismeijer, Hamdy Fetouh, R. Osman (2019)
A histomorphometric study on treated and untreated ceramic filled PEEK implants versus titanium implants: Preclinical in vivo studyClinical Oral Implants Research, 31
Spine Market : Data & Infographics — Orthoworld . 2020
Paul Suh, C. Puttlitz, Chad Lewis, B. Bal, K. Mcgilvray (2017)
The Effect of Cervical Interbody Cage Morphology, Material Composition, and Substrate Density on Cage SubsidenceJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 25
E. Massaad, N. Fatima, A. Kiapour, Muhamed Hadzipasic, G. Shankar, John Shin (2020)
Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the LiteratureNeurospine, 17
Tae-Sik Jang, Hyun-Do Jung, Sung-won Kim, Byeong-Seok Moon, J. Baek, Cheonil Park, Juha Song, Hyoun‐Ee Kim (2017)
Multiscale porous titanium surfaces via a two-step etching process for improved mechanical and biological performanceBiomedical Materials, 12
L. Bonewald, Stephen Harris, Jennifer Rosser, Mark Dallas, S. Dallas, N. Camacho, B. Boyan, Adele Boskey (2003)
Von Kossa Staining Alone Is Not Sufficient to Confirm that Mineralization In Vitro Represents Bone FormationCalcified Tissue International, 72
R. Olivares-Navarrete, S. Hyzy, P. Slosar, J. Schneider, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan (2015)
Implant Materials Generate Different Peri-implant Inflammatory FactorsSpine, 40
K. Hotchkiss, N. Clark, R. Olivares-Navarrete (2018)
Macrophage response to hydrophilic biomaterials regulates MSC recruitment and T-helper cell populations.Biomaterials, 182
Hypersensitivity to metallic
Ali Refai, M. Textor, D. Brunette, J. Waterfield (2004)
Effect of titanium surface topography on macrophage activation and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 70 2
Ge Zhao, O. Zinger, Z. Schwartz, M. Wieland, D. Landolt, B. Boyan (2006)
Osteoblast-like cells are sensitive to submicron-scale surface structure.Clinical oral implants research, 17 3
O. Zinger, Ge Zhao, Z. Schwartz, J. Simpson, M. Wieland, D. Landolt, B. Boyan, B. Boyan (2005)
Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features.Biomaterials, 26 14
H. Terheyden, N. Lang, S. Bierbaum, B. Stadlinger (2012)
Osseointegration--communication of cells.Clinical oral implants research, 23 10
A. Cheng, W. Goodwin, Ben deGlee, R. Gittens, Jonathan Vernon, S. Hyzy, Z. Schwartz, K. Sandhage, B. Boyan (2018)
Surface modification of bulk titanium substrates for biomedical applications via low-temperature microwave hydrothermal oxidation.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 106 3
U. Ripamonti, L. Roden, L. Renton (2012)
Osteoinductive hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants.Biomaterials, 33 15
T. Rautray, R. Narayanan, K. Kim (2011)
Ion implantation of titanium based biomaterialsProgress in Materials Science, 56
S. Hyzy, A. Cheng, D. Cohen, G. Yatzkaier, Alexander Whitehead, Ryan Clohessy, R. Gittens, B. Boyan, Z. Schwartz (2016)
Novel hydrophilic nanostructured microtexture on direct metal laser sintered Ti-6Al-4V surfaces enhances osteoblast response in vitro and osseointegration in a rabbit model.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 104 8
Interbody Cage Devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
H. Makanji, Gregory Schroeder, A. Vaccaro, Eve Hoffman (2020)
What is the Best Material for an Interbody Cage?Clinical Spine Surgery
Ethan Lotz, D. Cohen, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan (2020)
Titanium Implant Surface Properties Enhance Osseointegration in Ovariectomy Induced Osteoporotic Rats without Pharmacologic Intervention.Clinical oral implants research
Z. Schwartz, C. Lohmann, J. Oefinger, L. Bonewald, David Dean, B. Boyan (1999)
Implant Surface Characteristics Modulate Differentiation Behavior of Cells in the Osteoblastic LineageAdvances in Dental Research, 13
S. Najeeb, Z. Khurshid, J. Matinlinna, Fahad Siddiqui, M. Nassani, K. Baroudi (2015)
Nanomodified Peek Dental Implants: Bioactive Composites and Surface Modification—A ReviewInternational Journal of Dentistry, 2015
T. Jiya, T. Smit, B. Royen, M. Mullender (2010)
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using non resorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide fusion devices. Clinical outcome at a minimum of 2-year follow-upEuropean Spine Journal, 20
L. Guehennec, A. Soueidan, P. Layrolle, Y. Amouriq (2007)
Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials, 23 7
P. Kou, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan, J. Babensee (2011)
Dendritic cell responses to surface properties of clinical titanium surfaces.Acta biomaterialia, 7 3
R. Gittens, R. Olivares-Navarrete, Z. Schwartz, B. Boyan (2014)
Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants.Acta biomaterialia, 10 8
Karla Brammer, Seunghan Oh, J. Gallagher, S. Jin (2008)
Enhanced cellular mobility guided by TiO2 nanotube surfaces.Nano letters, 8 3
R. Gittens, Taylor McLachlan, R. Olivares-Navarrete, Y. Cai, S. Berner, R. Tannenbaum, Z. Schwartz, K. Sandhage, B. Boyan (2011)
The effects of combined micron-/submicron-scale surface roughness and nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation.Biomaterials, 32 13
N. Lang, G. Salvi, G. Huynh-Ba, S. Ivanovski, N. Donos, D. Bosshardt (2011)
Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans.Clinical oral implants research, 22 4
biomimetics Review A Review of Biomimetic Topographies and Their Role in Promoting Bone Formation and Osseointegration: Implications for Clinical Use 1 , † 2 , † 1 , 3 1 4 5 Michael B. Berger , Paul Slosar , Zvi Schwartz , David J. Cohen , Stuart B. Goodman , Paul A. Anderson 1 , 6 , and Barbara D. Boyan * Department of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA; bergermb@vcu.edu (M.B.B.); zschwartz@vcu.edu (Z.S.); djcohen@vcu.edu (D.J.C.) SpineCare Medical Group, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA; pslosar@spinecare.com Department of Periodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94063, USA; goodbone@stanford.edu Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53705, USA; anderson@ortho.wisc.edu Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA * Correspondence: bboyan@vcu.edu † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: The use of metallic and polymeric materials for implants has been increasing over the past decade. This trend can be attributed to a variety of factors including a significant increase in basic science research focused on implant material characteristics and how various surface modifications may stimulate osseointegration and, ultimately, fusion. There are many interbody fusion devices Citation: Berger, M.B.; Slosar, P.; and dental implants commercially available; however, detailed information about their surface Schwartz, Z.; Cohen, D.J.; Goodman, properties, and the effects that various materials and surface modifications may have on osteogenesis, S.B.; Anderson, P.A.; Boyan, B.D. A is lacking in the literature. While the concept of bone-implant osseointegration is a relatively recent Review of Biomimetic Topographies addition to the spine fusion literature, there is a comparatively large body of literature related to and Their Role in Promoting Bone dental implants. The purpose of this article is to summarize the science of surface modified bone- Formation and Osseointegration: facing implants, focusing on biomimetic material chemistry and topography of titanium implants, Implications for Clinical Use. to promote a better understanding of how these characteristics may impact bone formation and Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46. https:// osseointegration. This manuscript has the following aspects: highlights the role of titanium and its doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020046 alloys as potent osteoconductive bioactive materials; explores the importance of biomimetic surface Academic Editor: João F. Mano topography at the macro-, micro- and nano-scale; summarizes how material surface design can Received: 9 March 2022 influence osteogenesis and immune responses in vitro; focuses on the kinds of surface modifications Accepted: 14 April 2022 that play a role in the process. Biomimetic surface modifications can be varied across many clinically Published: 16 April 2022 available biomaterials, and the literature supports the hypothesis that those biomaterial surfaces that exhibit physical properties of bone resorption pits, such as roughness and complex hierarchical Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral structures at the submicron and nanoscale, are more effective in supporting osteoblast differentiation with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- in vitro and osteogenesis in vivo. iations. Keywords: topography; bone; titanium; stem cells; osteoblasts; biomimicry Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction This article is an open access article Osseointegration is the robust biological cascade that occurs after a biomaterial is distributed under the terms and placed in or adjacent to native bone tissue. The process consists of the following: (1) conditions of the Creative Commons hematoma formation following surgical trauma; (2) an innate immune response char- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// acterized by macrophages and neutrophils; (3) migration of bone marrow stromal cells creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (MSCs) and osteoprogenitor cells from the native bone toward the material surface and 4.0/). Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020046 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 2 of 11 their subsequent differentiation into bone-forming osteoblasts; (4) fusion of monocytes to form multi-nucleated osteoclasts and remodeling of the newly synthesized primary bone; (5) formation of competent, structurally anchored mature bone [1]. The term “osseointegration” implies that a material becomes integrated with adjacent bone. It is a broad term and encompasses materials as disparate as autografts and allografts, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), synthetic bone graft substitutes, metals, ceramics and polymers. Osseointegration can occur in a physical sense when bone grows in from the native bone bed, stabilizing the implant. If the implant has a porous surface, the bone ingrowth may form a mechanical interlock [2,3]. Bone can also form directly on materials that possess specific chemical and/or physical properties. For autografts and allografts, these are achieved by the action of osteoclasts on the surface, leaving osteoclast resorption pits with micro-, meso-, and nanoscale textures as well as biochemical cues for MSC and osteoprogenitor cell recruitment, attachment and differentiation. Materials like DBM also provide factors that promote osteoblast differentia- tion, such as bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) [1,2]. The physical properties associated with osteoclast resorption pits can be generated on biomaterials using a variety of tech- niques, enhancing osseointegration through adsorption of various proteins, recruitment and attachment of MSCs and osteoprogenitor cells, and osteoblast differentiation, subse- quent bone formation and downstream remodeling. While these events can be achieved using materials such as titanium and its alloys, not all materials support osteogenesis and osseointegration in this manner. For example, materials such as poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) support formation of a fibrous connective tissue interface instead [4]. Successful osseointegration was first achieved in dental implant applications. The pursuit to provide a stable bone anchor for reconstructing a functional dentition is facilitated by a variety of surface modifications, leading to bone growth onto the surface. Bone- facing implants are also used in orthopedics. For example, stability of joint prostheses is achieved through a mechanical interlock resulting from bony ingrowth into a microporous surface topography. Alternatively, orthopedic surgeons may use polymethylmethacrylate to cement the prosthesis within the medullary canal, which negates the value of any surface modification for enhancing bone ingrowth. Implants are used in spinal fusion applications in order to eliminate pathologic motion between two or more vertebral bodies. This is commonly achieved by removing the inter- vertebral disc and replacing it with an interbody fusion device (IBFD). IBFDs are developed uniquely for each anatomical location within the spine and, depending on function and loading requirements, may provide a geometry for which bone graft materials can be placed within or adjacent to the implant [5]. In addition, the IBFD provides structural support to withstand the compressive forces of the disc space to maintain vertebral alignment [6]. Advancements in surface processing, similar to those used for dental implants, have devel- oped biomimetic implant surfaces with irregular structures to further facilitate fusion by enhancing the differentiation of MSCs and stimulating the production of osteogenic soluble signaling factors [7]. Together, graft containment, structural support, and biomimetic surface modification facilitate the eventual fusion of bone across the disc space. The concept of implant osseointegration with the vertebral body is a relatively recent addition to the spine fusion literature, and implants are rapidly being developed and modified in a variety of ways to try to promote bone formation. Some of the approaches used to modify the surfaces of IBFDs come directly from the literature on endosseous dental implant applications, which have focused on evolving materials and surface modifications in order to optimize rapid and reliable integration of an implant with host bone. Therefore, the overall goal of this article is to provide a perspective on IBFD surface design, based on the available dental implant material science literature and clinical oral implant research with respect to existing biomimetic surface processing. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 3 of 11 2. Spine Fusion Devices as a Subset of Bone-Facing Implants Historically, autografts were used as bone fillers in periodontology and as spacers be- tween vertebral bodies to stimulate ossification and fusion in anterior cervical discectomies and fusion (ACDFs). However, due to major morbidity from the donor sites, clinicians have transitioned to allografts and synthetic materials as these technologies have matured. While some surgeons still use allograft bone as their implant of choice, a majority of fusions after ACDF are performed by inserting implants made of polymer materials or titanium alloy. Titanium was the first synthetic material used in vertebral fusion dating back to the late 1970s. These implants were first iterations and were chosen due to their high wear resistance, excellent biocompatibility, and osteoconductivity demonstrated from use as dental implants. One limitation of these Ti-based implants was the mismatch in mechanical modulus between titanium and the native bone tissue leading to stress shielding and increasing the potential for subsidence, or vertebral spacing loss. These implants lacked dis- crete, specific surface properties engineered to direct cellular response, possessing instead a less sophisticated topography [5,8]. In the 1990s, polymers became attractive due to their more similar mechanical modu- lus and radiolucency, making it possible to observe fused bone on plane X-rays. PEEK is the primary polymeric-material used in these devices and PEEK IBFDs have dominated the market for the last 25 years. Chemically, these IBFDs were considered biologically “inert” in short-term analyses because bone did not form in close approximation to the implant, and the nature of the smooth surface and hydrophobicity resulted in limited osteoconduc- tivity [9]. Recognition that PEEK implants are surrounded by a fibrous connective tissue has shown that these materials are not “inert.” Rather, they support fibrosis at the interface with bone. To overcome this, PEEK IBFDs are increasingly being coated with titanium, to attempt to provide the same biocompatible properties as titanium-based IBFDs, and clinical evidence has shown some promise, however, many of these IBFDs lack biomimetic surface topographies [10,11]. Clinical assessment of spinal fusion rate and subsidence has been assessed in multiple meta-analyses and retrospective studies. Earlier studies compared smooth PEEK and Ti-based cages and found increased incidences of subsidence in the Ti IBFDs. Other studies have shown that cage footprint area, age, bone density, and excessive grafting material, not IBFD material, is a cause for these differences [12,13]. Recent meta-analyses have shown that PEEK cages exhibit either no difference in fusion rates or statistically significantly less fusion compared to Ti-based counterparts, and no differences in subsidence and improved clinical outcomes after 1 year, as clinical approaches have been refined and cage design has been improved [5,13–15]. There is growing scientific research into the long-term effects of both metals and polymers in the human body. Metal allergy and immune sensitization is a concern for many orthopedic and dental implants, specifically around the generation of small micron- scale particles in the peri-implant environment inducing an immune response, usually a result of corrosion or wear [16,17]. Interestingly, there is evidence specifically with PEEK polymer indicating that the bulk polymeric materials can elicit inflammatory immune responses from the innate immune system, which helps to promote the formation of a fibrous connective tissue interface between the host bone and IBFD, leading to implant instability [18–20]. Several cases of non-union in polymer-based implants exhibited severe osteolysis, posing a risk to patients during revision [5]. This may be a factor in the growing use of IBFDs manufactured from, or coated with, titanium alloys, particularly titanium- aluminum-vanadium alloy (Ti6Al4V). In 2010, Ti-based implants comprised roughly 5% of the global market, but this has grown to 46% of the market in 2019, while PEEK’s market share has declined from 68% to roughly 44% in 2019 [21]. The trend to use Ti6Al4V can be attributed to a variety of factors including a significant increase in basic science research focused on the biomimetic material characteristics of implants and how various surface modifications may stimulate implant osseointegration and fusion [4,22]. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 4 of 11 3. Methodology of Literature Search Articles indexed online at National Library of Medicine (PubMed.gov) and online using Google Scholar were inquired for basic research and clinical articles during or after 1995. Keywords used in these searches were one or a combination of the following: titanium, PEEK, interbody fusion device, IBFD, spine cage, osseointegration, osteoblast, microroughness, topography, nanoscale, nano roughness, osteoclast, surface modification, surface properties, grit blast, acid etch, titanium plasma spray, 3D printing, additive manufacturing, immune, and bone. Journals whose scope of research focuses on evaluating bioactive materials, osseointegration, dental implantology, interbody fusion, and tissue engineering were selected for review and compilation. Historical perspective was provided by landmark studies from Per-Ingvar Branemark prior to 1995. 4. Biomimetic Nature of Titanium and Its Alloys Branemark first reported on the biocompatibility of commercially pure Ti, noting that it was an ideal material for use in bone [23,24]. The reason for this was the natural passivation layer composed of titanium dioxide (TiO ) ceramic, which forms on Ti and its alloys when they are exposed to air. The TiO ceramic surface is well tolerated in bone and does not cause a fibrous connective tissue interface to form. Ti was quickly adopted by the dental implant industry because of its mechanical similarity to bone, compared to other metals, and is becoming the choice material for craniofacial reconstruction [25]. Roughened surfaces were shown to be more effective than a smooth machined or polished surface, and there was soon a number of dental implant designs that had irregularly oriented, microtextured surfaces that were generated by a variety of methods. One of these methods, Ti plasma spray (TPS), produced roughness that projected out from the implant surface. TPS was highly irregular in form, but it stimulated bone- forming osteoblasts to become well differentiated in vitro [26] and supported osteogenesis in vivo [26]. TPS also had drawbacks. The knobs on the ends of the branched roughness fractured off, leading to leakage of Ti ions underlying the TiO layer, which were taken up by the surrounding cells [27,28]. In vitro studies showed that osteoprogenitor cells attached to the TPS surface, but their attachment and proliferation were reduced compared to other surface topographies, so the surface of the Ti substrates was not well covered [29]. In the end, the TPS implants were replaced in the marketplace by implants that had a more stable and improved surface topography. The newer approaches involved grit-blasting the surface followed by an acid treatment to remove any residual grit. Depending on the chemistry of the grit (aluminum oxide, calcium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, etc.), the size of the grit, the power and the length of the sandblasting process, the Ti surface is left with pits and craters of various sizes [27]. This “roughness” was in the scale of hundreds of microns to tens of microns. The use of acids provided another broad range of micro- and meso-scale surface topographies, varying with the type of acid used, the temperature of the acid, and the length of exposure. This grit-blasting/acid-etching approach resulted in Ti implant surfaces that had macroscale, microscale and mesoscale structures [4]. Most of these methods resulted in a surface that had a complex multi-scale roughness, characterized by craters, peaks, and valleys. To obtain a better understanding of how cells recognized these different surface topographies, test surfaces were made by electron photolithography, using the same method that is used to manufacture microchips. These substrates were coated with a nano-thin layer of Ti and had craters varying in size from 5 to 100 m, which were placed either next to each other or separated by a defined space. They were then either acid etched or anodized producing an average roughness about 700 nm in height [30]. Osteoprogenitor cells cultured on surfaces that had adjacent 30 microm- eter craters with an acid etched meso-scale and nano-scale topography exhibited statis- tically superior differentiated phenotypes to surfaces that did not possess these features (Figure 1) [30,31]. This same enhancement of osteoblast differentiation was observed on Ti Biomimetics 2022, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 11 nm in height [30]. Osteoprogenitor cells cultured on surfaces that had adjacent 30 microm- eter craters with an acid etched meso-scale and nano-scale topography exhibited statisti- cally superior differentiated phenotypes to surfaces that did not possess these features Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 5 of 11 (Figure 1) [30,31]. This same enhancement of osteoblast differentiation was observed on Ti substrates that were sandblasted and acid etched, creating a complex macro/mi- cro/meso-sc substrates a that le rou wer gehness sandblasted . and acid etched, creating a complex macro/micro/meso- scale roughness. Figure 1. Osteoprogenitor cells differentiate in response to discrete surface topography that mimics Figure 1. Osteoprogenitor cells differentiate in response to discrete surface topography that mimics the physical parameters of a bone surface modified by a bone resorbing osteoclast [30]. Clinically the physical parameters of a bone surface modified by a bone resorbing osteoclast [30]. Clinically relevant implant surfaces were produced by grit blasting with large grit corundum and subsequently relevant implant surfaces were produced by grit blasting with large grit corundum and subse- acid etching in the same manner. Osteoprogenitor cells cultured on both these modified titanium quently acid etching in the same manner. Osteoprogenitor cells cultured on both these modified substrates exhibited increased osteoblastic differentiation, as seen by decreased proliferation and titanium substrates exhibited increased osteoblastic differentiation, as seen by decreased prolifera- increases in osteoblastic markers such as osteocalcin, compared to cells cultured on tissue culture tion and increases in osteoblastic markers such as osteocalcin, compared to cells cultured on tissue plastic. Groups not sharing letters are significant at a p-value of <0.05. culture plastic. Groups not sharing letters are significant at a p-value of <0.05. Scanning electron microscopy of osteoclast resorption pits indicate that these specific structural characteristics are also found on bone surfaces in vivo after they have been Scanning electron microscopy of osteoclast resorption pits indicate that these specific conditioned by osteoclasts [32,33]. In vitro experiments examining the response of osteo- structural characteristics are also found on bone surfaces in vivo after they have been con- progenitor cells to osteoclast-resorbed bone wafers show that the osteogenic stimulus of the ditioned by osteoclasts [32,33]. In vitro experiments examining the response of osteopro- surface increases with the degree of resorption [34]. In comparison to their behavior on tis- genitor cells to osteoclast-resorbed bone wafers show that the osteogenic stimulus of the sue culture polystyrene, osteoprogenitor cells cultured on the biomimetic sandblasted/acid surface increases with the degree of resorption [34]. In comparison to their behavior on etched Ti substrates exhibit significantly greater osteoblast differentiation. However, this tissue culture polystyrene, osteoprogenitor cells cultured on the biomimetic sand- effect is not as robust as the response of these cells to an osteoclast-resorbed bone surface blasted/acid etched Ti substrates exhibit significantly greater osteoblast differentiation. (Figure 2). However, this effect is not as robust as the response of these cells to an osteoclast-resorbed bone surface (Figure 2). Biomimetics 2022, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11 Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 6 of 11 Figure 2. Osteoclast treatment of bone wafers conditions the surface of the bone to stimulate os- Figure 2. Osteoclast treatment of bone wafers conditions the surface of the bone to stimulate osteo- teoblastic differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells [34]. Scanning electron imaging of an osteoclast blastic differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells [34]. Scanning electron imaging of an osteoclast mod- modified bone surface at 10 days shows topographical alterations as the mineral is resorbed away. ified bone surface at 10 days shows topographical alterations as the mineral is resorbed away. Cul- Culturing cells on bone wafers increases osteoblastic differentiation without modification by osteo- turing cells on bone wafers increases osteoblastic differentiation without modification by osteoclasts clasts and increasing the length of surface modification by bone resorbing osteoclasts increased the and increasing the length of surface modification by bone resorbing osteoclasts increased the differ- differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells and osteocalcin production. Groups not sharing letters are entiation of osteoprogenitor cells and osteocalcin production. Groups not sharing letters are signif- significant at a p-value of <0.05. icant at a p-value of <0.05. When osteoclasts condition bone, they not only resorb mineral, but they also modify When osteoclasts condition bone, they not only resorb mineral, but they also modify the chemistry of the bone resorption pit in order to recruit osteoprogenitor cells and induce the chemistry of the bone resorption pit in order to recruit osteoprogenitor cells and in- new bone formation, and synthetic materials that contain this chemical modifications duce new bone formation, and synthetic materials that contain this chemical modifica- have shown ability to regulate cell response [35]. While the chemical information that tions have shown ability to regulate cell response [35]. While the chemical information they leave behind is important, the physical alterations that they leave behind are critical that they leave behind is important, the physical alterations that they leave behind are features when designing a biomimetic implant surface. The ability to now replicate and commercially manufacture material surfaces that are naturally occurring (biomimicry) has critical features when designing a biomimetic implant surface. The ability to now replicate opened to door to the concept that Ti alloys can be used effectively in orthopedics and that and commercially manufacture material surfaces that are naturally occurring (biomim- the kinds of surface modifications that have been so successful in dental implantology can icry) has opened to door to the concept that Ti alloys can be used effectively in orthopedics be applied to skeletal bone. and that the kinds of surface modifications that have been so successful in dental implan- tology can be applied to skeletal bone. 5. Biomimicry: Nanotopography as a Critical Variable in Surface Topography All surfaces exhibit a nanotopography to some extent. The concept of nanotopography 5. Biomimicry: Nanotopography as a Critical Variable in Surface Topography has emerged in the biomaterials literature to refer to structural features that have at least one dimension that is less than 100 nm in diameter [36]. Nanotextures can be generated All surfaces exhibit a nanotopography to some extent. The concept of nanotopogra- by a variety of methods, including acid etching, oxidation, and addition of nanoparticles phy has emerged in the biomaterials literature to refer to structural features that have at and nanotubes [36–39]. In most instances, the resulting features are actually mesoscale, least one dimension that is less than 100 nm in diameter [36]. Nanotextures can be gener- meaning that they are less than 1 m but greater than 100 nm, although they may have a ated by a variety of methods, including acid etching, oxidation, and addition of nanopar- dimension that is less than 100 nm. ticles and nanotubes [36–39]. In most instances, the resulting features are actually A number of in vitro studies have been performed to assess if these surface topog- mesoscale, meaning that they are less than 1 μm but greater than 100 nm, although they raphy manipulations can promote cellular reactions stimulatory for bone formation. In may have a dimension that is less than 100 nm. some cases, surface modifications can enhance the osteogenic properties of Ti and Ti-alloy substrates A number [40], obut f in vitro careful stu comparative dies have be anal en ysis performed shows that to this ass is ess technique if thesesensitive surface topogra- and phy manipulations can promote cellular reactions stimulatory for bone formation. In some cases, surface modifications can enhance the osteogenic properties of Ti and Ti-alloy sub- strates [40], but careful comparative analysis shows that this is technique sensitive and is Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 7 of 11 is limited to only a subset of modifications [41]. The variation in response is due to the resulting shape and chemistry of the nanotexture and its relationship to other physical features of the surface [42]. The most effective biomimetic surfaces for osseointegration have been shown to have craters that are between 30 and 100 m in diameter, overlaid with pits that are 1–3 m in diameter and a nanotexture that has a mesoscale dimension of 500–700 nanometers with an “isosceles triangle” morphology [7]. A variety of claims have been made concerning nanoscale surface modifications on Ti implants. In some models (additive processing) the particles are added or attached in some way to a machined surface or a 3D printed surface [36,43]. These technologies are often tested in conventional cell culture dishes and use osteogenic media to stimulate osteoblast differentiation of MSCs as a test for their ability to stimulate osteogenesis in vivo. These tests rely on the properties of the media supplements (high Ca++, dexamethasone, and beta-glycerol phosphate, as well as bone morphogenetic protein 2 [BMP2]) to ensure that mineral deposition can occur, but the outcomes may reflect the supplements rather than the actual topographic elements [44–46]. In contrast, when MSCs are cultured on osteoclast resorption pit biomimetic sub- strates that have specific micro-/meso-/nano-textured surfaces produced via subtractive processing (grit blasting/acid etching), osteoblast differentiation occurs rapidly even in the absence of these media supplements, indicating that it is the complex topography of surface that is stimulating the osteogenic outcome [7,47]. This is supported by in vivo data, both in animal models and in humans. In humans, a 10-year study evaluating 511 dental implants with micron and submicron scale roughness demonstrated 98.9% implant survival rate and healthy soft-tissue in patients who previously presented with peri-implant inflammation [48]. In animals, micro-/nano-roughened implants were able to overcome the effects of post-menopausal osteoporosis using aged, ovariectomized rats without additional pharmacologic intervention, and increased wettability at the time of placement further increased bone formation peri-implant [49,50]. This effect of wettability is also seen in humans, where bone formation was improved 2 and 4 weeks post implantation (14.8% vs. 12.2% and 48.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively) compared to microroughened implants alone but were equal by 6 weeks (61.5%) [51]. These data demonstrate the best physiological responses occur on surfaces possessing a combination of all of these topographic properties, specifically structures at the macro-/micro-/meso-/nano-scale. As noted above, the number of possible surface modifications is large, but not all resulting surface topographies are clinically useful, or even desirable. Determining whether a surface feature will have a positive impact on clinical outcomes, particularly in patients with underlying conditions affecting bone health, requires comprehensive in vitro and in vivo assessments. It is critical that the surface characteristics be extensively analyzed, as treatment steps during processing can modify all length scales. This is especially important as the industry moves to additively manufactured implant designs [43]. While it is attractive to produce complex three-dimensional structures that address vertebral anatomy, the methods used to fabricate the IBFD and the post-build processing can all impact the eventual surface topography. Until these surfaces are evaluated in vitro and preclinically it is difficult to fully predict the response of cells or systems to these synthetic biomaterials. 6. Biomimetic Surface Topography and Immune Modulation There is increasing interest in immunomodulation and its role in biological responses to biomaterials. Early studies showed that maturation of dendritic cells is sensitive to Ti implant surface properties [52], suggesting that immune cells present in the environment following implant placement could be influenced and, in turn, influence the clinical out- come. Recently, studies have also demonstrated that recruitment of circulating neutrophils and the capturing of these cells from the vasculature is regulated by implant surface prop- erties and may be a key determinant in cell recruitment and resolution of inflammatory signaling [53,54]. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 8 of 11 Subsequent studies have supported this hypothesis by showing the Ti implants with osteoclast resorption pit biomimetic surfaces result in the differentiation of macrophages along a pro-healing M2 pathway whereas surfaces that have a comparatively smooth surface topography result in a pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype [55,56]. Histopathology of tissues confirm that this is the case in vivo as well. Adaptive immune cells are also regulated by implant properties, and biomimetic topographies have been shown to maintain the immaturity of dendritic cells and alter T cell and helper cell activation and regulation in response to topography and wettability [55,57]. Factors produced by MSCs in response to surface topography indicate that there is cross talk between immunomodulators generated in response to surface topography with those factors produced by immune cells. In general, MSCs exhibit increased production of interleukin 10, interleukin 4 and reduced production of factors associated with apoptosis, necrosis, and chronic inflammation such as interleukin 1 and interleukin 6 when they are cultured on biomimetic Ti, TiZr, and Ti-6Al-4V substrates [42,58,59]. Implants that comprise alternative alloys or polymeric materials, such as PEEK, have been further modified to have surface properties similar to that of Ti and its alloys, either through the addition of layers of Ti or by the incorporation of these alloys, or other additives into the bulk substrate [60,61]. In some instances, surface modification improves the overall cellular response of these implants compared to machined or untreated surfaces. How- ever, when compared to Ti, these alternative implant options create a more inflammatory environment, resulting in the production of inflammatory cytokines and a mixed pool of macrophages with both M1 and M2 polarizations, and were correlated with lesser bone formation at 10 days, suggesting the switch to regenerative macrophages is delayed [9]. Overall, the use of additives and creation of surface composites to overcome the natural inability of bone to form on a polymer surface possesses the potential risk of a fibrous tissue interface, as shown in preclinical models and in the clinic. 7. Conclusions This overview of how material surface design can influence osteogenesis and immune responses in vitro has focused on the kinds of surface modifications that play a role in the process. These modifications can be achieved through a variety of methods on two- dimensional surfaces, but the literature supports the hypothesis that those surfaces that exhibit physical properties of osteoclast resorption pits are more effective in supporting osteoblast differentiation in vitro and osteogenesis in vivo. The increasing use of advanced manufacturing to produce implants with complex three-dimensional structures may neces- sitate the development of new ways of creating these biomimetic topographies [43,62]. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.S., M.B.B., Z.S., D.J.C., S.B.G., P.A.A. and B.D.B.; method- ology, M.B.B., P.S., Z.S., D.J.C. and B.D.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.B. and P.S.; writing—review and editing, P.S., M.B.B., Z.S., D.J.C., S.B.G., P.A.A. and B.D.B.; visualization, M.B.B.; supervision, B.D.B., S.B.G., P.A.A. and Z.S.; project administration, P.S. and B.D.B.; funding acquisi- tion, B.D.B. and S.B.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: Research presented in this paper was funded by US PHS Grants R01 AR072500 (BDB), the Alice T and William H Goodwin, Jr. Dean’s Chair at Virginia Commonwealth University (BDB) and R01 AR063717 (SBG), R01 AR073145 (SBG), and Ellenburg Chair in Surgery at Stanford (SBG). The authors are grateful to Medtronic Spine (Memphis, TN), AB Dental (Ashdod, Israel), and Institut Straumann AG (Basel, Switzerland) for their generous support of the work. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: P.S. and B.D.B. are paid consultants for Medtronic Spine. M.B.B., Z.S., D.J.C. and S.B.G. declare no conflict of interest. P.A.A. is a paid consultant for TRI, Radius Medical, Amgen, and Medtronic. The funders had no role in the design of the review; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 9 of 11 References 1. Terheyden, H.; Lang, N.P.; Bierbaum, S.; Stadlinger, B. Osseointegration—Communication of cells. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 1127–1135. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Holt, D.J.; Grainger, D.W. Demineralized bone matrix as a vehicle for delivering endogenous and exogenous therapeutics in bone repair. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2012, 64, 1123–1128. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Trindade, R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Current Concepts for the Biological Basis of Dental Implants: Foreign Body Equilibrium and Osseointegration Dynamics. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am 2015, 27, 175–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Gittens, R.A.; Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: Lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 3363–3371. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Makanji, H.S.; Schroeder, G.D.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Hoffman, E.G. What is the Best Material for an Interbody Cage? Clin. Spine Surg. 2020, 33, 137–139. Available online: https://journals.lww.com/jspinaldisorders/Fulltext/2020/05000/What_is_the_Best_ Material_for_an_Interbody_Cage_.4.aspx (accessed on 8 March 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Zdeblick, T.A.; Phillips, F.M. Interbody Cage Devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28, S2–S7. Available online: https://journals. lww.com/spinejournal/Fulltext/2003/08011/Interbody_Cage_Devices.2.aspx (accessed on 8 March 2022). 7. Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Hyzy, S.L.; Berg, M.E.; Schneider, J.M.; Hotchkiss, K.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D. Osteoblast lineage cells can discriminate microscale topographic features on titanium-aluminum-vanadium surfaces. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2014, 42, 2551–2561. [CrossRef] 8. Elkazaz, M.K.; Koptan, M.W.; Alshatoury, H.A.; Alkosha, H.M.; Abou-Madawi, A. Cervical Intervertebral Cages: Past, Present, Innovations, and Future Trends with Review of the Literature. Egypt. Spine J. 2020, 35, 2–29. [CrossRef] 9. Trindade, R.; Albrektsson, T.; Galli, S.; Prgomet, Z.; Tengvall, P.; Wennerberg, A. Bone Immune Response to Materials, Part I: Titanium, PEEK and Copper in Comparison to Sham at 10 Days in Rabbit Tibia. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 526. [CrossRef] 10. Nakanishi, Y.; Naito, K.; Yamagata, T.; Yoshimura, M.; Shimokawa, N.; Nishikawa, M.; Ohata, K.; Takami, T. Safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using titanium-coated polyetheretherketone stand-alone cages: Multicenter prospective study of incidence of cage subsidence. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 74, 47–54. [CrossRef] 11. Kashii, M.; Kitaguchi, K.; Makino, T.; Kaito, T. Comparison in the same intervertebral space between titanium-coated and uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion surgery. J. Orthop. Sci. 2020, 25, 565–570. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Suh, P.B.; Puttlitz, C.; Lewis, C.; Bal, B.S.; McGilvray, K. The Effect of Cervical Interbody Cage Morphology, Material Composition, and Substrate Density on Cage Subsidence. JAAOS—J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2017, 25, 160–168. Available online: https: //journals.lww.com/jaaos/Fulltext/2017/02000/The_Effect_of_Cervical_Interbody_Cage_Morphology,.10.aspx (accessed on 8 March 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Campbell, P.G.; Cavanaugh, D.A.; Nunley, P.; Utter, P.A.; Kerr, E.; Wadhwa, R.; Stone, M. PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: A comparative analysis of subsidence. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2020, 49, E10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Massaad, E.; Fatima, N.; Kiapour, A.; Hadzipasic, M.; Shankar, G.M.; Shin, J.H. Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. Neurospine 2020, 17, 125–135. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Canseco, J.A.; Karamian, B.A.; Patel, P.D.; Divi, S.N.; Timmons, T.; Hallman, H.; Nachwalter, R.; Lee, J.K.; Kurd, M.F.; Anderson, D.G.; et al. PEEK Versus Titanium Static Interbody Cages: A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for 1-Level TLIFs. Clin. Spine Surg. 2021, 34, E483–E493. Available online: https://journals.lww.com/jspinaldisorders/Fulltext/2021 /10000/PEEK_Versus_Titanium_Static_Interbody_Cages__A.12.aspx (accessed on 8 March 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Theron, A.J.; Tintinger, G.R.; Anderson, R. Harmful interactions of non-essential heavy metals with cells of the innate immune system. J. Clin. Toxicol. 2011, s3, 5. [CrossRef] 17. Hallab, N.; JJacobs, J.; Black, J. Hypersensitivity to metallic biomaterials: A review of leukocyte migration inhibition assays. Biomaterials 2000, 21, 1301–1314. [CrossRef] 18. Yang, J.J.; Yu, C.H.; Chang, B.; Yoem, J.S.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, C.-K. Subsidence and Nonunion after Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cage. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2011, 3, 16–23. [CrossRef] 19. Jiya, T.U.; Smit, T.; Van Royen, B.J.; Mullender, M. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using non resorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-L-lactide-co-D, L-lactide fusion devices. Clinical outcome at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 618–622. [CrossRef] 20. Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Hyzy, S.L.; Slosar, P.J.; Schneider, J.M.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D. Implant materials generate different peri-implant inflammatory factors: Poly-ether-ether-ketone promotes fibrosis and microtextured titanium promotes osteogenic factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015, 40, 399–404. [CrossRef] 21. Evers, M. Spine Market: Data & Infographics—Orthoworld. 2020. Available online: https://www.orthoworld.com/reports- downloads/ (accessed on 8 March 2022). 22. Girasole, G.; Muro, G.; Mintz, A.; Chertoff, J. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion rates in patients using a novel titanium implant and demineralized cancellous allograft bone sponge. Int. J. Spine Surg. 2013, 7, e95–e100. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Brånemark, P.I. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1983, 50, 399–410. [CrossRef] 24. Branemark, P.I.; Adell, R.; Albrektsson, T.; Lekholm, U.; Lundkvist, S.; Rockler, B. Osseointegrated titanium fixtures in the treatment of edentulousness. Biomaterials 1983, 4, 25–28. [CrossRef] Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 10 of 11 25. Salvi, G.E.; Bosshardt, D.D.; Lang, N.P.; Abrahamsson, I.; Berglundh, T.; Lindhe, J.; Ivanovski, S.; Donos, N. Temporal sequence of hard and soft tissue healing around titanium dental implants. Periodontol. 2000 2015, 68, 135–152. [CrossRef] 26. Ripamonti, U.; Roden, L.C.; Renton, L.F. Osteoinductive hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 3813–3823. [CrossRef] 27. Le Guéhennec, L.; Soueidan, A.; Layrolle, P.; Amouriq, Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 844–854. [CrossRef] 28. Rautray, T.R.; Narayanan, R.; Kim, K.-H. Ion implantation of titanium based biomaterials. Prog Mater Sci 2011, 56, 1137–1177. [CrossRef] 29. Martin, J.Y.; Schwartz, Z.; Hummert, T.W.; Schraub, D.M.; Simpson, J.; Lankford, J., Jr.; Dean, D.D.; Cochran, D.L.; Boyan, B.D. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1995, 29, 389–401. [CrossRef] 30. Zhao, G.; Zinger, O.; Schwartz, Z.; Wieland, M.; Landolt, D.; Boyan, B.D. Osteoblast-like cells are sensitive to submicron-scale surface structure. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2006, 17, 258–264. [CrossRef] 31. Zinger, O.; Zhao, G.; Schwartz, Z.; Simpson, J.; Wieland, M. Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 1837–1847. [CrossRef] 32. Mulari, M.T.K.; Qu, Q.; Härkönen, P.L.; Väänänen, H.K. Osteoblast-like cells complete osteoclastic bone resorption and form new mineralized bone matrix in vitro. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2004, 75, 253–261. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Hefti, T.; Frischherz, M.; Spencer, N.D.; Hall, H.; Schlottig, F. A comparison of osteoclast resorption pits on bone with titanium and zirconia surfaces. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 7321–7331. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Boyan, B.D.; Schwartz, Z.; Lohmann, C.H.; Sylvia, V.L.; Cochran, D.L.; Dean, D.D.; Puzas, J.E. Pretreatment of bone with osteoclasts affects phenotypic expression of osteoblast-like cells. J. Orthop. Res. 2003, 21, 638–647. [CrossRef] 35. Schaffner, P.; Dard, M.M. Structure and function of RGD peptides involved in bone biology. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2003, 60, 119–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Turlybekuly, A.; Pogrebnjak, A.D.; Sukhodub, L.F.; Sukhodub, L.B.; Kistaubayeva, A.S.; Savitskaya, I.S.; Shokatayeva, D.H.; Bondar, O.V.; Shaimardanov, Z.K.; Plotnikov, S.V.; et al. Synthesis, characterization, in vitro biocompatibility and antibacterial properties study of nanocomposite materials based on hydroxyapatite-biphasic ZnO micro- and nanoparticles embedded in Alginate matrix. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 104, 109965. [CrossRef] 37. Brammer, K.S.; Oh, S.; Gallagher, J.O.; Jin, S. Enhanced cellular mobility guided by TiO nanotube surfaces. Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 786–793. [CrossRef] 38. Jang, T.S.; Jung, H.D.; Kim, S.; Moon, B.S.; Baek, J.; Park, C.; Song, J.; Kim, H.E. Multiscale porous titanium surfaces via a two-step etching process for improved mechanical and biological performance. Biomed Mater. 2017, 12, 025008. [CrossRef] 39. Jemat, A.; Ghazali, M.J.; Razali, M.; Otsuka, Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 791725. [CrossRef] 40. 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, 32, 3395–3403. [CrossRef] 41. Cheng, A.; Goodwin, W.B.; DeGlee, B.M.; Gittens, R.A.; Vernon, J.P.; Hyzy, S.L.; Schwartz, Z.; Sandhage, K.H.; Boyan, B.D. Surface modification of bulk titanium substrates for biomedical applications via low-temperature microwave hydrothermal oxidation. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2017, 106, 782–796. [CrossRef] 42. Lotz, E.M.; Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Hyzy, S.L.; Berner, S.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D. Comparable responses of osteoblast lineage cells to microstructured hydrophilic titanium–zirconium and microstructured hydrophilic titanium. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, e51–e59. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Jing, Z.; Zhang, T.; Xiu, P.; Cai, H.; Wei, Q.; Fan, D.; Lin, X.; Song, C.; Liu, Z. Functionalization of 3D-printed titanium alloy orthopedic implants: A literature review. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 15, 052003. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Boyan, B.D.; Bonewald, L.F.; Paschalis, E.P.; Lohmann, C.H.; Rosser, J.; Cochran, D.L.; Dean, D.D.; Schwartz, Z.; Boskey, A.L. Osteoblast-mediated mineral deposition in culture is dependent on surface microtopography. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2002, 71, 519–529. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Schwartz, Z.; Lohmann, C.H.; Oefinger, J.; Bonewald, L.F.; Dean, D.D.; Boyan, B.D. Implant surface characteristics modulate differentiation behavior of cells in the osteoblastic lineage. Adv. Dent. Res. 1999, 13, 38–48. [CrossRef] 46. Bonewald, L.F.; Harris, S.E.; Rosser, J.; Dallas, M.R.; Dallas, S.L.; Camacho, N.P.; Boyan, B.; Boskey, A. Von Kossa Staining Alone Is Not Sufficient to Confirm that Mineralization In Vitro Represents Bone Formation. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2003, 72, 537–547. [CrossRef] 47. Lotz, E.M.; Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Berner, S.; Boyan, B.D.; Schwartz, Z. Osteogenic response of human MSCs and osteoblasts to hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanostructured titanium implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res.—Part A 2016, 104, 3137–3148. [CrossRef] 48. Buser, D.; Janner, S.F.M.; Wittneben, J.; Brägger, U.; Ramseier, C.A.; Salvi, G.E. 10-Year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: A retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 26, 1121–1128. [CrossRef] 49. Lotz, E.M.; Cohen, D.J.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D. Titanium implant surface properties enhance osseointegration in ovariectomy induced osteoporotic rats without pharmacologic intervention. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2020, 31, 374–387. [CrossRef] Biomimetics 2022, 7, 46 11 of 11 50. Hyzy, S.L.; Cheng, A.; Cohen, D.J.; Yatzkaier, G.; Whitehead, A.J.; Clohessy, R.M.; Gittens, R.A.; Boyan, B.D.; Schwartz, Z. Novel hydrophilic nanostructured microtexture on direct metal laser sintered Ti–6Al–4V surfaces enhances osteoblast response in vitro and osseointegration in a rabbit model. J. Biomed. Mater. Res.—Part A 2016, 104, 2086–2098. [CrossRef] 51. 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 Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 349–356. [CrossRef] 52. Kou, P.M.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D.; Babensee, J.E. Dendritic cell responses to surface properties of clinical titanium surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 1354–1363. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 53. Abaricia, J.O.; Shah, A.H.; Olivares-Navarrete, R. Substrate stiffness induces neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation through focal adhesion kinase activation. Biomaterials 2021, 271, 120715. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54. Abaricia, J.O.; Farzad, N.; Heath, T.J.; Simmons, J.; Morandini, L.; Olivares-Navarrete, R. Control of innate immune response by biomaterial surface topography, energy, and stiffness. Acta Biomater. 2021, 133, 57–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 55. Hotchkiss, K.M.; Reddy, G.B.; Hyzy, S.L.; Schwartz, Z.; Boyan, B.D.; Olivares-Navarrete, R. Titanium surface characteristics, including topography and wettability, alter macrophage activation. Acta Biomater. 2016, 31, 425–434. [CrossRef] 56. Hotchkiss, K.M.; Clark, N.M.; Olivares-Navarrete, R. Macrophage response to hydrophilic biomaterials regulates MSC recruitment and T-helper cell populations. Biomaterials 2018, 182, 202–215. [CrossRef] 57. Abaricia, O.; Shah, A.H.; Chaubal, M.; Hotchkiss, K.M.; Olivares-Navarrete, R. Wnt signaling modulates macrophage polarization and is regulated by biomaterial surface properties. Biomaterials 2020, 243, 119920. [CrossRef] 58. Refai, A.K.; Textor, M.; Brunette, D.M.; Waterfield, J.D. Effect of titanium surface topography on macrophage activation and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2004, 70, 194–205. [CrossRef] 59. Hyzy, S.L.; Olivares-Navarrete, R.; Ortman, S.; Boyan, B.D.; Schwartz, Z. Bone morphogenetic protein 2 alters osteogenesis and anti-inflammatory profiles of mesenchymal stem cells induced by microtextured titanium in vitro. Tissue Eng. Part A 2017, 23, 1132–1141. [CrossRef] 60. El Awadly, T.; Wu, G.; Ayad, M.; Radi, I.; Wismeijer, D.; Abo El Fetouh, H.; Osman, R.B. A histomorphometric study on treated and untreated ceramic filled PEEK implants versus titanium implants: Preclinical in vivo study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019, 31, 246–254. [CrossRef] 61. Najeeb, S.; Khurshid, Z.; Matinlinna, J.P.; Siddiqui, F.; Nassani, M.Z.; Baroudi, K. Nanomodified Peek Dental Implants: Bioactive Composites and Surface Modification—A Review. Int. J. Dent. 2015, 2015, 381759. [CrossRef] 62. Ho, C.M.B.; Ng, S.H.; Yoon, Y.J. A review on 3D printed bioimplants. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2015, 16, 1035–1046. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Published: Apr 16, 2022
Keywords: topography; bone; titanium; stem cells; osteoblasts; biomimicry
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.