Volume 22, Issue 11 pp. 1259-1264

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

Qin Liu

Qin Liu

Dept of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kiel, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Timothy Douglas

Timothy Douglas

Dept of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kiel, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Christiane Zamponi

Christiane Zamponi

Faculty of Engineering, Institute for Materials Science, Kiel, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Stephan T. Becker

Stephan T. Becker

Dept of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kiel, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Eugene Sherry

Eugene Sherry

Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Sureshan Sivananthan

Sureshan Sivananthan

Epsom and St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust and South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, University of London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Frauke Warnke

Frauke Warnke

School of Dental and Oral Health, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Jörg Wiltfang

Jörg Wiltfang

Dept of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kiel, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Patrick H. Warnke

Patrick H. Warnke

Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 24 February 2011
Citations: 41
Corresponding author:
Patrick H. Warnke
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
Gold Coast, Australia
Tel.: +61 7 5595 1220
Fax: +49 431 597 2930
e-mail: [email protected]

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.

To cite this article:
Liu Q, Douglas T. Zamponi C, Becker ST, Sherry E, Sivananthan S, Warnke F, Wiltfang J, Warnke PH. Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBone® and BioOss® for human osteoblasts.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res22, 2011; 1259–1264.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.