Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts

Qin Liu, Timothy Douglas, Christiane Zamponi, Stephan T. Becker, Eugene Sherry, Sureshan Sivananthan, Frauke Warnke, Jörg Wiltfang, Patrick H. Warnke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering seeded with the patient's own cells might be used as a preferable method to repair bone defects in the future. With the emerging new technologies of nanostructure design, new synthetic biomaterials are appearing on the market. Such scaffolds must be tested in vitro for their biocompatibility before clinical application. However, the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial might be challenging for the doctor and the patient. In this study, we compared the biocompatibility of a synthetic bone substitute, NanoBone ®, to the widely used natural bovine bone replacement material BioOss ®. Material and methods: The in vitro behaviour of human osteoblasts on both materials was investigated. Cell performance was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cell vitality staining and four biocompatibility tests (LDH, MTT, WST, BrdU). Results: We found that both materials showed low cytotoxicity and good biocompatibility. The MTT proliferation test was superior for Nanobone ®. Discussion: Both scaffolds caused only little damage to human osteoblasts and justify their clinical application. However, NanoBone ® was able to support and promote proliferation of human osteoblasts slightly better than BioOss ® in our chosen test set-up. The results may guide doctors and patients when being challenged with the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial. Further experiments are necessary to determine the comparison of biocompatibility in vivo.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1259-1264
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Oral Implants Research
Volume22
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

Biocompatible Materials
Osteoblasts
Bone Substitutes
Bone and Bones
Nanostructures
Bromodeoxyuridine
Tissue Engineering
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Staining and Labeling
Technology
Bio-Oss
NanoBone
In Vitro Techniques

Cite this

Liu, Q., Douglas, T., Zamponi, C., Becker, S. T., Sherry, E., Sivananthan, S., ... Warnke, P. H. (2011). Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 22(11), 1259-1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x
Liu, Qin ; Douglas, Timothy ; Zamponi, Christiane ; Becker, Stephan T. ; Sherry, Eugene ; Sivananthan, Sureshan ; Warnke, Frauke ; Wiltfang, Jörg ; Warnke, Patrick H. / Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts. In: Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2011 ; Vol. 22, No. 11. pp. 1259-1264.
@article{b2c3f50fa34c4d23b05b53706597437a,
title = "Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone{\circledR} and BioOss{\circledR} for human osteoblasts",
abstract = "Introduction: Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering seeded with the patient's own cells might be used as a preferable method to repair bone defects in the future. With the emerging new technologies of nanostructure design, new synthetic biomaterials are appearing on the market. Such scaffolds must be tested in vitro for their biocompatibility before clinical application. However, the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial might be challenging for the doctor and the patient. In this study, we compared the biocompatibility of a synthetic bone substitute, NanoBone {\circledR}, to the widely used natural bovine bone replacement material BioOss {\circledR}. Material and methods: The in vitro behaviour of human osteoblasts on both materials was investigated. Cell performance was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cell vitality staining and four biocompatibility tests (LDH, MTT, WST, BrdU). Results: We found that both materials showed low cytotoxicity and good biocompatibility. The MTT proliferation test was superior for Nanobone {\circledR}. Discussion: Both scaffolds caused only little damage to human osteoblasts and justify their clinical application. However, NanoBone {\circledR} was able to support and promote proliferation of human osteoblasts slightly better than BioOss {\circledR} in our chosen test set-up. The results may guide doctors and patients when being challenged with the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial. Further experiments are necessary to determine the comparison of biocompatibility in vivo.",
author = "Qin Liu and Timothy Douglas and Christiane Zamponi and Becker, {Stephan T.} and Eugene Sherry and Sureshan Sivananthan and Frauke Warnke and J{\"o}rg Wiltfang and Warnke, {Patrick H.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1259--1264",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "11",

}

Liu, Q, Douglas, T, Zamponi, C, Becker, ST, Sherry, E, Sivananthan, S, Warnke, F, Wiltfang, J & Warnke, PH 2011, 'Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts' Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1259-1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x

Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts. / Liu, Qin; Douglas, Timothy; Zamponi, Christiane; Becker, Stephan T.; Sherry, Eugene; Sivananthan, Sureshan; Warnke, Frauke; Wiltfang, Jörg; Warnke, Patrick H.

In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 22, No. 11, 11.2011, p. 1259-1264.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts

AU - Liu, Qin

AU - Douglas, Timothy

AU - Zamponi, Christiane

AU - Becker, Stephan T.

AU - Sherry, Eugene

AU - Sivananthan, Sureshan

AU - Warnke, Frauke

AU - Wiltfang, Jörg

AU - Warnke, Patrick H.

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Introduction: Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering seeded with the patient's own cells might be used as a preferable method to repair bone defects in the future. With the emerging new technologies of nanostructure design, new synthetic biomaterials are appearing on the market. Such scaffolds must be tested in vitro for their biocompatibility before clinical application. However, the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial might be challenging for the doctor and the patient. In this study, we compared the biocompatibility of a synthetic bone substitute, NanoBone ®, to the widely used natural bovine bone replacement material BioOss ®. Material and methods: The in vitro behaviour of human osteoblasts on both materials was investigated. Cell performance was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cell vitality staining and four biocompatibility tests (LDH, MTT, WST, BrdU). Results: We found that both materials showed low cytotoxicity and good biocompatibility. The MTT proliferation test was superior for Nanobone ®. Discussion: Both scaffolds caused only little damage to human osteoblasts and justify their clinical application. However, NanoBone ® was able to support and promote proliferation of human osteoblasts slightly better than BioOss ® in our chosen test set-up. The results may guide doctors and patients when being challenged with the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial. Further experiments are necessary to determine the comparison of biocompatibility in vivo.

AB - Introduction: Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering seeded with the patient's own cells might be used as a preferable method to repair bone defects in the future. With the emerging new technologies of nanostructure design, new synthetic biomaterials are appearing on the market. Such scaffolds must be tested in vitro for their biocompatibility before clinical application. However, the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial might be challenging for the doctor and the patient. In this study, we compared the biocompatibility of a synthetic bone substitute, NanoBone ®, to the widely used natural bovine bone replacement material BioOss ®. Material and methods: The in vitro behaviour of human osteoblasts on both materials was investigated. Cell performance was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cell vitality staining and four biocompatibility tests (LDH, MTT, WST, BrdU). Results: We found that both materials showed low cytotoxicity and good biocompatibility. The MTT proliferation test was superior for Nanobone ®. Discussion: Both scaffolds caused only little damage to human osteoblasts and justify their clinical application. However, NanoBone ® was able to support and promote proliferation of human osteoblasts slightly better than BioOss ® in our chosen test set-up. The results may guide doctors and patients when being challenged with the choice between a natural or a synthetic biomaterial. Further experiments are necessary to determine the comparison of biocompatibility in vivo.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053898439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1259

EP - 1264

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 11

ER -