See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233530788

Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in

Dental Implantology

Chapter · October 2012

DOI: 10.5772/50838

CITATIONS READS

3 1,589

10 authors, including:

Alejandro Pelaez-Vargas Daniel Gallego-Perez

Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia The Ohio State University
46 PUBLICATIONS 602 CITATIONS 107 PUBLICATIONS 2,207 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Natalia Higuita-Castro Angela Carvalho

The Ohio State University Instituto de Engenharia Biomédica (INEB)
61 PUBLICATIONS 931 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 343 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cell-ECM Mechanics View project

Cleft Lip and Palate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Helena Fernandes on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 11

Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue

Regeneration in Dental Implantology

A. Pelaez-Vargas, D. Gallego-Perez, N. Higuita-Castro, A. Carvalho, L. Grenho,

J.A. Arismendi, M.H. Fernandes, M.P. Ferraz, D.J. Hansford and F.J. Monteiro

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50838

1. Introduction
Dento-alveolar trauma and congenital absences are the most important causes of edentulism
that are not associated with bacteria. However, the World Health Organization reports show
that dental caries and periodontitis, two conditions of bacterial origin, are the most frequent
oral diseases in humans [1]. These conditions might be avoided if an adequate oral
preventive health policy is implemented, including preventive and educational measures
that, regardless of the population´s socioeconomic factors, have shown their effectiveness.
Despite these facts, tooth extraction1, defined as the surgical removal of a tooth, is currently
the most frequent surgical procedure in the world [1].
Tooth loss or edentulism affects the aesthetics and function of the stomatognathic system.
The missing interproximal contact produces an intra-arch imbalance that is visible as dental
misalignment and the formation of anterior/posterior diastema. Additionally, the tooth
distal to the extraction site will drift mesially into the space, thus creating an oclusal
collapse. Inter-arch disharmonies are observed as occlusal collapse, supereruption of
antagonist teeth, and alteration of the vertical dimension of occlusion. The synergy of inter-/
intra- arch disequilibrium is associated with ATM dysfunction, muscle hyperactivity,
nutritional imbalances, tooth wear, mobility, and potential harmful contact areas during
mandibular eccentric movements or otologic symptoms [2].
Recovering aesthetics and function is only possible using some oral rehabilitation
procedures such as fixed or removable prostheses. In the fixed restorations, titanium
implant-based therapy appears as the “gold standard’, considering that successful rates of
~95% after 5 years have been reported.

1 Tooth extraction was indexed (1965) in the MESH of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Some synonyms are

dental extraction, exodontia or pulling teeth.

© 2012 Pelaez-Vargas et al., licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
274 Cell Interaction

The history of implantology has been divided in two different phases, namely the pre-
osseointegration and post-osseointegration eras. Many audacious designs were developed
to be used in sub- or endosteal areas in the former. The most commonly used implants were
blades and plaques based on metallic alloys such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum and
stainless steel (Figure 1). These types of devices have been associated to doubtful long-term
clinical success. Initial clinical research reported by Branemark was criticized, but the basis
for a new philosophy in dental therapy had been initiated. After completing training in
Sweden, Zarb and colleagues from Toronto started a longitudinal study to verify the

Figure 1. History of dental implants. (a,b) Panoramic radiography and general view of a failed total
rehabilitation supported on blade/plate-shaped implants. (c) Parallel pins implant, (d) Endosteal
endodontic stabilizers and (e) different designs and surfaces of screw dental implants.

Figure 2. Double implants to replace a mandibular molar. (a,b) Periapical radiography and occlusal view
of the final rehabilitation. (c,d) Periapical radiography and detailed occlusal view after 10 years of function.
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 275

Figure 3. Ten-year follow-up of a successful implant-based rehabilitation after trauma. (a) Initial
panoramic radiography, where radiopaque zones compatible with metallic residues are observed. (b)
Initial clinical view. Note the extensive loss of mandibular teeth and their alveolar process. (c, d)
Surgical phase: ten implants were placed in two surgical treatment phases after a procedure of
distraction-based osteogenesis for vertical bone augmentation. (e,f) Final restorations exhibited an
increased length to obtain a compensation of the vertically lost bone dimension. (g,h) Panoramic
radiography and intraoral view after ten years of function. Note that the restoration is maintained in a
good aesthetic condition. (i) Clinical view in labial resting position.

possibilities of osseointegrated implants [3]. In 1982, the concept of osseointegration was

discussed in a meeting in Toronto attended by people from the most important dental
schools in North America. For more detailed information about the first steps of
osseointegrated implants, the reader is referred to more specific literature [3, 4].
Branemark’s work described osseointegration as a biological phenomenon involving direct
contact between bone and Ti surfaces, allowing for a new philosophy of therapy.
276 Cell Interaction

In general, it is accepted that implant therapy is a predictable treatment without any

contraindications for partially and fully edentulous patients. However, several factors, such
as implant design, surgical procedure, anatomic and osseous conditions, systemic diseases,
prosthetic design (Figure 2), and two-stage or immediate loading may affect the prognosis
and long-term success (Figure 3). A poor prognosis was observed in patients with
insufficient quality and/or quantity of bone receptor. Patients exhibiting poor quality of
bone (type IV) in the posterior area of the maxilla had a 35% implant failure. This
retrospective study indicated that patients with type I, II and III showed only 3% failure [5].

Systemic diseases are potential factors that affect the prognosis. The available information is
derived from empirical observational studies where multifactorial risks are considered. Moy
et al. showed a 10-year retrospective cohort study where 1140 patients were evaluated. Their
results presented evidence that smoking, history of diabetes, head and neck radiation and
postmenopausal estrogen therapy were correlated with a significantly increased failure rate,
while gender, hypertension, coronary arterial disease, pulmonary disease, steroid therapy,
chemotherapy and absence of hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women
were not associated with increased risk in implant failure [6]. This study concluded that
there are no absolute medical contraindications to dental implant rehabilitation, although
they must be individually considered for each new patient.

The decision to put implants in patients treated for aggressive periodontitis is a challenge
since controlled studies with large sample sizes are not available. Some case reports showed
approximately 8% failure in patients previously treated for aggressive periodontitis.
However, all the evaluated implants were placed in patients that had been previously
treated for several years before the implants were put in place [7]. Until more evidence
becomes available, factors such as time before therapy, the presence of natural treated teeth
or immune compromise might render these clinical situations unpredictable.

Reduced alveolar bone height appears as an important consideration when evaluating the
prognosis of dental implants. Two different approaches are used to achieve clinical success.
In situations of an extremely reduced amount of bone, the surgeon may employ bone
augmentation procedures (Figure 3 and 4), which result in higher costs, greater morbidity,
and longer treatment times. Another possibility includes the use of short implants, which
are defined as devices shorter than 6 to 10 mm [8]. Conflicting information is available about
the success of this type of implants, with some authors reporting that short implants are
unpredictable in cases of poor bone quality. However, alternative treatments are viable if
other favourable factors are considered. A survival rate of approximately 94% for a five-
year observation period was observed [8-10]. However, short implants have mechanical
disadvantages as a consequence of implant-crown ratios and the amount of osseointegrated
area around the implant [11].

In the last decade, there has been an important discussion related to loading implants
immediately. Branemark’s group postulated that early loading affects the prognosis due to a
fibrous capsule that may develop due to micro-movements, thus affecting osseointegration
[12]. They introduced the two-phase surgical procedure, in which the implant is submerged
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 277

under gingival tissue and maintained unloaded during a 3 to 6-month period. However,
new approaches have been introduced that include immediate loading based on the primary
stability during surgical procedure and surface bioactivity [13].

Figure 4. Fourteen-year follow-up of a successful implant-based rehabilitation. (a) Full-thickness flap

reflection reveals the extension of missing bone in the buccal aspect of the maxilla. (b) The use of
monocortical block graft to reconstruct the horizontal deficiency of the maxilla. (c) After 6 months tissue
exhibits good healing. (d) Three implants were placed in this site and submerged for a six-month
period. (e,f) Periapical radiography and clinical photography of complete restoration after treatment
and (g,h) Periapical radiography and clinical view after 14 years of function.

The long-term success of an implant largely depends on the equilibrium between

osseointegration and epithelial/connective tissue attachment. A complete soft tissue seal
protects the newly formed bone from bacterial products originated in the oral environment.

Several animal and in vitro studies showed similar epithelial and connective structures
between the gingiva and the peri-implant mucosa. The outer surface of the peri-implant
mucosa is lined by a stratified keratinized oral epithelium that is continuous, with a
junctional epithelium attached to the Ti surface by a basal lamina and hemidesmosomes.
278 Cell Interaction

The non-keratinized junctional epithelium is only a few cell layers thick in the apical portion
and is separated from the alveolar bone by collagen-rich connective tissue. This 3 to 4 mm
biological barrier, formed irrespective of the original mucosal thickness, protects the
osseointegration zone from factors released by the plaque and the oral cavity [14]. The main
differences between the soft tissues around natural teeth and those around implants are the
collagen fibres orientation, which run parallel from the implant surface to the crest bone, the
low number of fibroblasts, and the reduced vascularization of the scar tissue.

An osseointegrated implant is a good alternative to replace missing teeth, but they are not
exempt from failure and complications (Figure 5). Oral implant failures have been classified
as: 1) biological failures, which can be observed before loading and are associated with
reduced osseointegration. If they take place after loading, they are associated with failing to
maintain the achieved osseointegration; 2) mechanical failures, which can be observed as
implant or prosthetic structural failures; 3) iatrogenic failures, mainly associated with
procedures that affect anatomical structures or the misalignment of implants, which render
them impossible to restore; and 4) failures by inadequate patient adaptation that include
phonetical, aesthetical or psychological problems [15].

Figure 5. Different failure types in dental implantology. (a,b) Periapical radiography shows a
radiolucent lesion on the mesial surface associated with bone resorption and sign of mobility.
Photography shows the implant after removal. (c,d) Periapical radiographies show two posterior
fractured implants. Fracture was apparently caused by bruxism. Note in the radiography (d) that the
more anterior implant exhibits a large radiolucent zone as bone losses and the adjacent tooth shows an
apical lesion. (e,f) Failure of full restoration on implants and natural teeth was caused presumably by
poor design and support.
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 279

Mobility is the most evident sign of implant failure and can be presented as rotational,
lateral or horizontal, and axial or vertical mobility [15]. There are different terms in the
literature associated with biological implant failure or complications like peri-implant
diseases, peri-mucositis and peri-implantitis, where the first two are reversible
inflammatory reactions around a functioning implant. Peri-implantitis is a chronic
inflammation with loss of the supporting tissues around the implant induced by bacterial
colonization, facilitated by the implant/abutment gap and by the chemistry and surface
roughness of the restorative components [14, 16].

Bacteria colonize and develop biofilms on the transmucosal abutment of osseointegrated

dental implants. Like the gingival crevice around the natural tooth, the peri-implant
mucosa covering the alveolar bone is closely adapted to the implant. In partially edentulous
subjects, the developing microbiota around implants closely resembles the microflora of
natural teeth [14]. In addition to the dark-pigmented, gram-negative anaerobic rods, other
bacteria are associated with peri-implant infections (Bacteroides forsythus, Fusobact. nucleatum,
Campylobacter, Peptostreptcc. micros and Prevotella intermedia) [17], and eventually Staphylocc.
spp, enterics, and Candida spp [18].

Metals, including Ti, may induce non-specific immunomodulation and self-immunity. In

immunologic in vitro tests, sensitization to Ti was observed [19]. Such problems with Ti and
the ever-growing expectations on aesthetics lead to increasing interest in all-ceramic
implants.

The surface texture of dental implants affects the rate of osseointegration [20] and
biomechanical fixation. Surface roughness may be classified as “macro“, “micro“ and
“nano“ sized topologies. The “macro” range, from millimetres to 10 μm, is directly related
to implant geometry, with threaded screws and macroporous coatings helping the primary
stability of the implants during the early phases of implantation. However, high surface
roughness may increase peri-implantitis risk compared with moderate roughness (1-2 μm)
within the “micron” range (1-10 μm), maximizing bone/implant interlocking. Surface
profiles in the “nano” range play an important role in protein adsorption and osteoblast
adhesion and thus, in osseointegration [21]. No reproducible surface roughness is currently
clinically available.

Dental implant failure is an active clinical research area. A number of strategies have been
studied to modulate cell/material interactions, which play an important role in determining
the short- and long-term implant success rate. This chapter will be mainly focused on the
basic aspects to study cell/material interactions in dental implants using progenitor cells and
in vitro biofilm formation approaches, as well as basic information related with micro-
engineering technologies to modify dental implant surfaces.

2. Strategies to study cell/material interactions

Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) are commonly isolated from perinatal tissues (i.e, placenta,
umbilical cord and blood from the umbilical cord) and postnatal tissues (bone marrow,
280 Cell Interaction

trabecular bone, alveolar bone, cartilage, hair follicles, fat, skin and dental pulp) [22]. Bone
marrow and pulp derived cells are frequently used in oral biology research to evaluate the
biocompatibility of different dental materials. However, the frequency of MSCs in both
tissues is not well known (0.001 to 0.01%). Bernardo et al. reported that MSCs frequency in
bone marrow exhibits an age-related behaviour from 1:10,000 in a new-born to 1:1,000,000 in
an 80-year-old subject [23]. Another important aspect is associated with anatomic skeletal
site-specific differences [24], where MSCs obtained from calvaria have proven more
successful for grafting in craniofacial application than cells obtained from others donor sites.

Different mechanical, chemical, or combined approaches have been used to disrupt the
extracellular matrix to isolate MSCs from bone tissue bits or bone marrow. In the mechanical
approach, the bone tissue is cut into small pieces using surgical blades, and then either
suspended or plated. The main disadvantage of this procedure is shear-stress injury. The
enzymatic digestion of the bone chips, with a combination of trypsin and collagenase
(chemical-based approach) to obtain a cell suspension, should be avoided because trypsin
might damage the cell membrane surface. If these cells are collected for some type of human
cell therapy, a complete characterization of these proteases is required by regulatory
agencies.

The number of sources for autologous MSCs for dentistry has increased due to the hundreds
of mandatory extractions (e.g., third molars and premolars for orthodontic purposes)
performed each year, since these tissues are routinely discarded. Many authors have shown
that pulp-derived MSCs from deciduous and permanent teeth, as well as from periodontal
ligament, might be isolated. These types of MSCs from different niches are heterogeneous
and exhibit site-specific features, but in general they are able to produce bone, dentine,
cement, and periodontal ligament-like structures [22, 25].

The successful isolation procedure of homogeneous populations is commonly based on

morphology at early culture stages, considering that MSCs exhibit a fibroblast-like
morphology. In the case of heterogeneous populations, the classification based upon specific
markers is more desirable. Although specific and unequivocal markers are not available, an
evaluation of non-specific multi-markers allows for a reasonable characterization. Tuan [26]
reported that MSCs cells are positive for STRO-1, CD73, CD146, and CD106, and negative
for CD11b, CD45, CD34, CD31 and CD117, preferably evaluated by fluorescence-active cell
sorting (FACS). Other phenotypic approaches require the evaluation of MSCs capacity for
trilineage mesenchymal differentiation (osteoblasts, adipocytes and chondroblasts) under
standard in vitro differentiating conditions [23, 27].

Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s (D-MEM) and Minimal Essential Medium (α-MEM) are the
most used standard cell culture media for in vitro bone cell studies. They are supplemented
with different percentages of fetal bovine serum (FBS, 10% or 15%), antibiotics, antimycotics,
and ascorbic acid. Coelho, et al. [28] made a comparative study on the behaviour of human
bone marrow (hBM) osteoblastic cells cultured in α-MEM or D-MEM and they found a
similar cell proliferation between both media. However, cells cultured in α-MEM exhibited
higher ALP levels and earlier formation of mineralized deposits. Serum is essential in
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 281

promoting or inhibiting cell proliferation and differentiation since it is a complex mixture of

proteins, growth factors, ions, lipids and hormones.

Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) is an inexpensive choice to conduct in vitro bone regeneration
studies, but Human Serum is another option that can help to obtain more realistic results,
and although a direct extrapolation from in vitro studies to clinical situations would be
desirable, this has not been possible [29]. Recently, Deorosan and Nauman (2011) evaluated
the effects of the concentrations of serum and glucose on the metabolic activity of murine
MSCs, and concluded that the effects of the serum percentage (e.g. 2%, 5% and 10%) were
negligible. However, a high correlation was found between cell viability and glucose
concentrations (0.5 to 25 mM) [30].

Antibacterial and antimycotic agents are other types of supplements that can be
controversial. Both should be avoided because they may affect cell physiology and mask
improper aseptic conditions. However, from a realistic point of view, considering the risk of
losing irreplaceable MSCs, the standard use of antibacterials (e.g., Penicilin/Streptomycin,
100 IU/ml and 10mg/ml, respectively; Gentamicin, 10μg/ml) and antimycotics (e.g.,
Amphotericin B, 0.25μg/ml) is required. Also, tetracyclines are often used to take advantage
of their Ca-binding and fluorescence properties under UV light, allowing for the
quantification of matrix mineralization. Other tetracyclines, like doxycycline and
minocycline, when in low concentrations, may stimulate the proliferation of human
osteoblastic cells [31].

The main goal of long-term in vitro MSCs cell cultures is their differentiation. To promote
osteoblastic differentiation, the most frequently used supplements are ascorbic acid (AA,
50μg/ml), dexamethasone (Dex, 10nM), and β-glycerolphosphate (βGP, 10mM) [32]. When
tested in vitro, these compounds are able to promote growth and accelerate the
differentiation process of osteoprogenitor cells, thus reducing the proliferation period of the
developmental sequence in the expression of the osteoblastic phenotype [33]. Coelho and
Fernandes studied the proliferation/differentiation of hBMSCs cultured under different
conditions of mineralization supplements. Their results show high proliferation in all the
tested conditions, but mineralization was only achieved in the presence of βGP and this
mineralization was greater in the presence of Dex.[32].

The micro-environment affects the ability of the osteoblast to produce a mineralized matrix,
thus compromising the bone repair/regeneration process. Roughness has been considered as
a major aspect in the osseointegration of titanium implants. Albrektsson and Wennerberg
[34] classified the surface implants as smooth (0.0-0.4 μm), minimally rough (0.5-1.0 μm),
moderately rough (1.0-2.0 μm) and rough (>2.0 μm). Theoretically, an increased roughness
can be associated with a stronger bone response but also a greater potential for peri-
implantitis and a higher risk of ionic leakage [34]. Other materials based on Co-Cr alloys
and AISI 316L stainless steel have been used as dental implants. However, their use is
controversial because corrosion products from Co-Cr alloys have been demonstrated to
affect the cell viability, ALP activity and formation of a mineralized matrix in vitro when
using osteoblast-like cells from rat, rabbit and human BM-MSCs [35]. These findings have
282 Cell Interaction

been confirmed with corrosion products from AISI 316L stainless steel (and the isolated Fe,
Ni and Cr ions). Deleterious dose- and time-dependent effects on ALP activity and matrix
mineralization in rat, rabbit BMSCs and human alveolar bone cell cultures have been shown
[33, 36]. On the other hand, the release of ionic species from hydroxyapatite-based materials
might be explored to obtain a positive modulation of the osteoblastic cell response. For
instance, Si-substituted hydroxyapatite coatings promote osteoblast proliferation and
differentiation when compared to hydroxyapatite coatings due, at least in part, to the release
of Si ions [37]. The aforementioned studies help to understand the relevance of MSCs and
their in vitro osteogenic differentiation as tools to assess bone cell response to materials and
agents intended for bone repair/regenerations strategies.

2.1. Bacterial adhesion process, biofilm formation and in vitro models

Adherence mechanisms of oral bacteria are essential to bacterial colonization of the oral
cavity. In their absence, bacteria become part of the salivary flow and are swallowed. As a
result, oral bacteria have developed several mechanisms to fulfill this task. The mechanisms
are highly specific; the oral cavity is colonized mainly by bacteria that are exclusively found
in it. Through retention, these bacteria can form organized, intimate, multispecies
communities referred to as dental plaque and biofilms [38, 39]. Microbial adhesion and the
accumulation of pathogenic biofilms are considered to play major roles in the pathogenesis
of peri-implantitis and implant loss [40]. Therefore, knowledge about the microbiology
around dental implants is essential.

After exposure of an osseointegrated implant to the oral cavity, an acquired pellicle is

formed on the implant surface through selective adsorption of the environmental
macromolecules including glycoproteins (mucins), proline-rich proteins, enzymes like α-
amylase, histidine-rich proteins, phosphoproteins like statherin, and other molecules [38,
41]. These are derived mainly from saliva but, in the subgingival region, molecules originate
from gingival crevicular fluid [42]. The physicochemical surface properties of a pellicle,
including its composition, packing, density, and/or configuration, are largely dependent on
the physical and chemical nature of the underlying hard surface.

The adsorption of proteins from an aqueous solution onto a solid surface is the result of
various types of interactions that simultaneously occur between all the components, namely
the fluid, the solid and the solubilized proteins. The mechanisms involved in pellicle
formation include electrostatic, van der Waals, and polarity forces. The polarity of each of
these components has great impact on the adsorption process, which is reflected in the
hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity of the interacting components [41, 43]. The pellicle plays a
decisive role in microbial adhesion, as its constituents may interact with oral micro-
organisms, either by direct interaction with them, or indirectly by influencing the
thermodynamic conditions for microbial adhesion [44].

After formation of the acquired pellicle, bacterial attachment with initial colonizers followed
by cell-to-cell adhesion with secondary colonizers occurs on the implant surface [45]. An
initial reversible adhesion involves weak, long-range, non-specific physicochemical
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 283

interactions between the charge on the microbial cell surface and that of the acquired
pellicle. Microorganisms are usually transported passively to the surface by the flow of
saliva or gingival crevicular fluid or by active bacterial movement. A few species (e.g
Wolinella, Selenomonas and Campylobacter spp.) found sub-gingivally have flagella and are
motile [42]. Alternatively, microorganisms in suspension may also be transported towards
each other by microbial (co)aggregates [41].

During the second phase of adhesion, strong, short-range interactions between specific
molecules on the bacterial cell surface (adhesins) and complementary molecules (receptors)
present in the acquired pellicle can result in irreversible attachment. Oral bacteria generally
possess more than one type of adhesin on their cell surface and can participate in multiple
interactions both with host molecules and similar receptors on other bacteria (co-adhesion)
[46].

Streptococci, the main early colonizers, bind to acidic proline-rich-proteins and other
receptors like α-amylase and sialic acid in the acquired pellicle [47]. In addition, Actinomyces,
which are other primary colonizers, bind to the acquired pellicle and to the streptococci [38,
39, 41]. Consequently, these two groups of primary colonizers are thought to prepare the
environment for later colonizers that have more fastidious and slow requirements for
growth. Other bacteria, including periodontal pathogens such as Hamophilus
actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Treponema denticola,
Tannerella forsythensis or Fusobacterium species, bind to Streptococci and/or Actinomyces [48].
This stage also involves specific inter-bacterial adhesin-receptor interactions and leads to an
increase in the diversity of the biofilm [46].

The increase in attached cell numbers leads to biomass augmentation and the synthesis of
exopolymers that form a biofilm matrix. This matrix is a common feature of all biofilms, and
is more than a chemical scaffold to maintain the shape of the biofilm. It provides a
significant contribution to the structural integrity and general tolerance of biofilms to
environmental factors (e.g. desiccation) and antimicrobial agents. The close proximity of
cells to one another in a biofilm facilitates numerous synergistic and antagonistic
interactions between neighboring species. Within the biofilm, oral bacteria do not exist as
independent entities but rather as a coordinated, spatially organized, and fully metabolically
integrated microbial community, whose properties are more relevant than the sum of the
individual composing species [41, 42, 49].

The physico-chemical characteristics of specific material surfaces are known to significantly

influence the bacterial adhesion process. Both surface free energy and surface roughness are
known to play major roles in this process [41, 50]. High surface roughness values
significantly promote bacterial adhesion by reducing the influence of shear forces on
initially attaching bacteria, while materials with high surface free energy values are known
to increase bacterial adhesion [51]. Furthermore, the bacterial adhesion process is influenced
by the chemical composition, surface hydrophobicity, and the zeta potential of the material
[52]. An increased zeta potential, which refers to the electrostatic potential generated by the
accumulation of ions on the surface, results in decreased bacterial attachment. Generally,
284 Cell Interaction

hydrophobic microorganisms prefer to attach to hydrophobic substrata, and bacteria with

hydrophilic properties prefer hydrophilic materials. Moreover, bacterial adhesion varies
between the various bacterial species and strains [50, 53].

Understanding how bacteria relate and act within biofilms is essential for the prevention
and proper management of dental and periodontal diseases [54]. In order to increase the
knowledge concerning biofilm physiology, the creation of models to study and evaluate this
complex consorting under controlled conditions is of great interest. Over the past years,
several in vivo and in vitro biofilm models have been developed with this intent. However, in
vivo studies in both animals and humans are more restricted due to problems with access
and sampling and because of complex ethical issues involved [55, 56].

The currently available in vitro models clarify extensively the microbial biofilm physiology,
micro-ecology, pathology and behaviour. These models are used to replicate environmental
conditions in vitro and have served as the major conceptual framework for biofilm research,
ranging from static mono-cultures to the development of diverse mixed cultures growing
under dynamic conditions. For each particular application, every model has its strengths
and weaknesses that can be appropriate for one specific application but not for others [57-
59]. Two major biofilm models have been studied in the laboratory, namely biofilms grown
without a continuous flow of fresh medium, known as static models, and biofilms grown
with a continuous flow of fresh medium, known as flow models [60].

The quantification of biofilms started with simpler methods based on the cultivation of the
biofilm in the wall of test tubes or well plates, like the microtiter plate method. With this
system, biofilms are grown on the bottom of the walls or in a substrate placed on the wells
of a microtiter plate, for a desired period of time. Besides its simplicity, this method has
several advantages, such as low cost and the small amount of reagents required and allows
to perform a large number of tests simultaneously, remaining among the most frequently
used models to assess biofilm formation. By running it under static conditions, the
environment in the well will change during the experiment, unless the fluid is regularly
replaced. Also, during biofilm formation, bacteria may deposit on the substrate and on the
bottom of the well, and not actively attach to the surface [55, 61-63].

Recently, a new model where the substrate can be positioned vertically to assure active
attachment of the bacteria to the surface was developed. This simple high-throughout active
attachment model consists of a lid with 24 clamps were different substrates can be put. This
lid is placed in a common 24-well plate allowing the substrates to be vertically positioned
during the period of biofilm formation [59, 63, 64].

Since in vivo conditions are almost exclusively dynamic, the use of reactors for the in vitro
development of biofilms has been largely applied. These systems normally work using
continuous flow to provide nutrients to the growing biofilm and can be used for different
purposes [57].

A very frequently used model in the dental research field is the constant depth film
fermenter (CDFF), a steady-state model. This system consists of a rotating stainless steel disk
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 285

in which plugs are located. Different materials can be placed and used as substrates for
biofilm growth until a maximum thickness has been reached. When reached, the excess
biofilm is scraped off and nutrients are distributed into the system. The reactor allows
several parameters to be tailored, such as the possibility to choose growth conditions-
aerobic or anaerobic- and the option to alter nutrient schemes. This model has been
frequently used for dental plaque studies [56, 65, 66].

Another commonly used system is the CDC biofilm reactor developed in the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention by Donlan, et al. [67, 68]. The reactor has 24 removable
surfaces that allow biofilm formation under moderate to high sheer stresses in batch or
continuous flow-conditions. It has been used to evaluate biofilm formation and structure
and also to test the effects of antimicrobial agents in the biofilm [67, 68].

Figure 6. Biofilm formation on a) negative, b) positive relief micropatterned surfaces and c) flat
surfaces.

However, the systems described previously lack the possibility of continuously monitoring
biofilm growth. Recently, microfluidics systems have been adapted to study biofilm
formation. Microfluidics set-ups are normally fabricated through soft-lithography with the
size of the channels in the range of 50 to 500 μm and flow rates typically very low, between
0.1–50 μl/min. These devices have the advantage of simulating biological phenomena with
physiological flow velocities, low fluid-to-cell volume ratios, and biomimetic micro-/ nano-
engineered surfaces (Figure 6). Also, the small size of the chambers allows for real-time
microscopic analysis of biofilm formation [55, 69, 70].

3. Micro/nanoscale engineering of cell-material interactions

Understanding the interactions between cells and biomaterial surfaces at the micron-,
submicron-, and nano-scale, is crucial for the production of functional biomedical devices
(e.g. implants, biosensors, etc.). Biomaterials are known to elicit specific cellular responses
(positive or negative) depending upon the surface chemical and/or physical properties.
Surface topography (from the micron- down to the nano-scale), for instance, plays a crucial
role in controlling important cellular processes such as adhesion, propagation, proliferation,
orientation, migration, differentiation, and reactivity to certain hormones, growth factors
and drugs, both in vitro and in vivo [71, 72].
286 Cell Interaction

The effects of surface microtopography on cell behaviour have been widely documented.
Previous research has shown that microtextured surfaces, independent of surface chemistry,
exhibit a strong influence on in vitro and in vivo cell behaviour [71, 73, 74].

Surface microroughness affects in vitro adsorption of albumin and fibronectin [75]. Studies
performed on randomly oriented microtopographies showed stronger cell adhesion, altered
integrin expression, up-regulation of focal contacts, reorganization of the cytoskeleton,
changed proliferation, increased differentiation, and enhanced susceptibility to different
hormones and growth factors [76-79]. The implementation of lithographic and dry etching
techniques from the silicon microelectronics industry into the cell biology field allowed for
further studies on the effects of controlled microtopographies on cell behaviour [73]. For the
past two decades, in vitro and in vivo studies on controlled microtopographies have shown
enhanced cell adhesion and proliferation, cell orientation along the direction of the
microfeatures, altered migration and motility patterns, up-regulation of certain cytoskeletal
and extracellular matrix proteins, reduced immune response, increased mitochondrial
activity, augmented differentiation, etc. Such effects are cell and material-dependent [80-85].
The effects of surface nanotopography on cell functions have been studied since the early
1960’s [86, 87]. Cells are known to be reactive to objects as small as a few nanometers
(~ 5nm) [80]. A number of different topographical patterns at the submicron and nano-scale
(both randomly oriented and controlled) have been explored, including columns, dots, pits,
pores, meshwork, gratings, nanophase grain, and random surface roughness [88-95].
Some studies have suggested that osseointegration is a function of the initial interactions
that occur between the implant surface and blood. Park and collaborators found that platelet
adhesion and activation were increased on micro/nanotextured titanium surfaces compared
to polished ones [96], presumably due to the increase in actual surface area (leading to
increased protein adsorption), and/or topographically-induced cytoskeletal rearrangement,
which could have led to downstream intracellular signaling cascades resulting in platelets
aggregation and granules release. This enhanced thrombogenic potential is expected to
improve endosseous integration, as osteogenic cells reach the implant surface by migrating
through the remnants of the initial osteo-conductive/inductive blood thrombus [97, 98].
Additional studies found that surface micro/nanotextures improve osseointegration due to
the fact that the initial fibrin clot is mechanically stabilized by the topography [99, 100].
Finally, micro/nanostructured material surfaces have also been shown to provide a greater
number of nucleation sites for the precipitation of minerals (e.g. Ca and P) from the blood
plasma, which results in the formation of an amorphous apatite layer on the surface of the
implant that could potentiate osseointegration [70, 101].

Another way surface micro/nanofeatures could lead to enhanced osseointegration is by

directly influencing bone cell responses. Previous studies showed that the initial osteoblast-
material interactions (i.e. adhesion, spreading and growth) could play an important role in
leading to a long-term positive response at the bone-implant interface [70]. Fewster, et al.
showed that micron-scale (1-50 μm) pillars and pores on polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
and polystyrene (PS) surfaces led to improved osteoblast adhesion [102]. Using a cyto-
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 287

detacher, Wang, et al. showed that the adhesion force of osteoblasts to nanostructured
titanium surfaces increased (38.5-58.9 nN) in direct proportion to the surface roughness [70].
Webster, et al. found increased vitronectin adsorption and enhanced osteoblast cell adhesion
on nanophase alumina surfaces [95]. Wan, et al. showed that osteoblast adhesion was also
enhanced on micro- and nanostructured PLLA and PS surfaces, in comparison to their
smooth surface counterparts [103]. In this study, no significant differences in the adhesion
were found between micro- and nanostructured surfaces, and the cell proliferation levels
were similar on textured surfaces compared to the smooth ones. Other groups showed
increased osteoblast cell proliferation on nanostructured ceramic surfaces [104, 105]. This
indicates that there may be a synergistic effects between surface topography and chemistry
that need to be accounted for in some cases, or perhaps that the specific geometrical
parameters (e.g. shape, size) of the nanotexture could also determine the degree of cell
responses.

Numerous studies have reported an enhanced osteogenic phenotype in response to surface

micro- and nanotextures on polymeric, ceramic, and metallic materials [104-109].
Remarkably, Dalby, et al. showed that circular nanostructures can induce osteogenic
differentiation in the absence of osteogenic factors in the cell culture medium [110, 111].
More recent reports by Zhao, et al. indicated that the combination of micro- and
nanostructures on the same surface may result in a cooperative synergy between the micro-
and nanotopography that ultimately leads to improved bone cell responses [112].

Micro- and nanotextured surfaces also tend to promote increased adhesion in other cell
models (e.g. fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells, and chondrocytes), although the stimulus for
topography-mediated increased cell adhesion seems to be more prominent for osteoblast
cells [99]. Similarly, topography-mediated changes in cell morphology, gene expression,
proliferation, and migration, have been reported for human embryonic stem cells, rat aortic
endothelial cells, murine macrophages, epithelial, and glial cells, among others [71, 113].
Although surface nanotopography for the most part has been shown to induce “positive”
cell responses (e.g. increased adhesion, proliferation, differentiation), there are other reports
that suggest that this phenomenon (i.e. topography-mediated cell responses) may be
regulated to some degree by the specific geometrical (and perhaps chemical) properties of
the patterns. Curtis, et al. studied the effects of different nanofeatures (pillars, pits, randomly
distributed Au nanoparticles) on fibroblast and endothelial cell behaviour [114]. The results
confirmed increased cell adhesion on the nanogrooves, and decreased adhesion on the
nanopillars and nanopits (with adhesion being inversely proportional to the distance
between nanofeatures). Cell adhesion on the Au nanoparticles was no different compared to
flat surfaces. Dalby, et al. studied fibroblast responses to PMMA nanocolumns and found
that cell adhesion and spreading were reduced on the nanocolumns compared to smooth
surfaces [115, 116]. The cells growing on the nanocolumns exhibited lower actin
polymerization, smaller focal adhesions, and increased filopodia formation. Kunzler, et al.
studied osteoblast responses to silica-based nanotopographies, and found that cell adhesion,
spreading, and actin polymerization were reduced on the nanostructured surfaces in
comparison to smooth ones [117].
288 Cell Interaction

To summarize, there is rather strong evidence suggesting that micro- and nanoscale surface
structures have the potential to modulate cell responses, which could be used to better
design biomedical devices (e.g. implants, sensors) by turning on/off specific responses
depending on the application. However, the lack of systematic and more controlled studies
limits the exploitation of this concept, as it is difficult to reach a consensus on a single micro-
and/or nanotopography that could lead to optimum cell responses for any given
application. Nevertheless, recent advances in the fields of micro- and nanofabrication are
enabling the development of studies where different topographical parameters (e.g. feature
size, organization, density, geometry) could be evaluated in a more controlled manner,
which is expected to ultimately lead to a better understanding of the role of surface
topography on cellular responses.

A host of different techniques have been developed to imprint features on the surface of a
biomaterial at the submicron and nanoscale: laser irradiation, soft lithography, dip-pen
nanolithography, capillary lithography, electron beam (e-beam) lithography,
microimprinting, interference lithography, nanoimprint, X-ray lithography, polymer
demixing, and colloidal lithography among others [88-90, 92, 93, 118-122].

3.1. Soft Lithography and Sol-Gel Technology

Lithography has been used since ancient years. Initially, photolithography was introduced
in the editorial industry to achieve better printing results. However, this technique
contributed later to the development of the integrated circuit industry, and it became the
main contributor to the information technology. Photolithography is also essential to
produce technology for sensors, microsensors, micromechanical systems (MEMS),
microanalytical systems, micro-optical systems and integrated circuits [123, 124].

In 2006, Ferrari, et al. wrote “Less than twenty years ago photolithography and medicine
were total strangers to one another …. And then, nucleic acid chips, microfluidics and
microarrays entered the scene, and rapidly these strangers became indispensable partners in
biomedicine” [125].

In basic terms, photolithography helps to create small structures in a massive scale, but it is
not always the best option for all applications since it requires expensive technology. Poor
results for curved substrates and the fact that it is limited to photosensitive materials are
some of its drawbacks. These limitations inspired two important review papers introducing
Soft Lithography (Figure 7) [123, 124].

The soft lithography process can be included among other techniques that are basically
rapid prototyping processes. Figure 7 shows a 24h flow from the idea to the final
prototyping [123]. Establishing borders for soft lithography is a hard task because several
techniques, such as microcontact printing (mCP), replica molding, microtransfer molding,
micromolding in capillaries (MIMIC) and solvent-assisted micromolding (SAMIM), include
the use of stamps or molds as key elements to produce micro- nano-patterns [123].
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 289

Figure 7. Rapid prototyping using Photolithography and Soft Lithography. Adapted from [123]

Elastomers, such as polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) have been used in most applications of

stamping. Other research groups have also used other elastomers such as polyurethanes,
polyimides, and cross-linked Novolac resin (a phenol formaldehyde polymer) [123]. PDMS
exhibits advantages such as being chemically inert, good surface reproducibility, limited
shrinkage, homogenity, isotropy, transparency, and easily modifiable by plasma. However,
its main disadvantages are the swelling in the presence of non-polar solvents, such as
toluene and hexane, and forces, like gravity. Adhesion and capillary forces exert stresses on
the elastomeric features and cause them to collapse, generating defects in the produced
pattern. Therefore, obtaining patterned surfaces with features smaller than 1 μm is difficult
[123].

Sol-gel is called “the wet chemistry” in processing ceramics, glasses and other materials, but it
can be referred to as several chemical reactions occurring during the manufacturing of
technological products. Under this term, several techniques of production of materials such
as monolithics, powders, fibers, nanospheres, pigments, and coatings have been developed
for aerospatial, optical, electronic, refractory, automotive, polymers and sensors, and
medical industries [126-130].

First synthesis of silica was described by Ebelmen in 1844, but it found its commercial
application in the early 1960´s [131]. Since its beginnings in the 1940´s, the sol-gel processing
has helped to obtain a new generation of materials (ceramic and glasses). Considering the
initial precursors, the processing can be divided in aqueous solution of metal salts, metal
alkoxide solutions or mixed organic, and inorganic precursors [132]. Frequently, the
alkoxides (TEOS/MTES) have been used to produce a hybrid sol. These precursors
290 Cell Interaction

hydrolyze with the formation of partially hydrolyzed products and they subsequently
undergo condensation with formation of an oxide network [133, 134]. The sol stage is used
to produce thin films by spin coating, dip coating or imprinting.

In general, these materials present high purity and homogeneity, their particle size
distribution may be controlled at the nano-scale level, and they require low temperatures to
be prepared. In comparison with high temperature processes, these sol/gel materials and
processes save energy, minimize evaporation losses and air pollution, and, in general, do
not induce reactions with their containers. However, they are not free of disadvantages.
Among these disadvantages, the high cost of raw materials, the large shrinkage during
processing, the residual hydroxyls, carbon and microporosity, the long times for processing,
and the difficulty to adapt them to produce large pieces are found. For additional
information, the readers are invited to read more specialized reviews [134, 135].

Figure 8. Anisotropic (a) and isotropic (b) silica coatings produced by synergy of soft lithography and
sol-gel technology. Inset in both figures shows the PDMS molds.

For optical applications, surface relief features in or on thin films can be used. Specific
geometries are used to produce couplers, filters, lenses, beam splitters and mirrors. For
biomedical applications, Hench [136] described early that “A common characteristic of glasses,
glass-ceramics and ceramics that bond to living tissues is the development of a bioactive
hydroxyapatite layer in vivo at body temperature”. Also, this author proposed the following
categories for materials with the potential for biological or medical use: 1) bioactive sol-gel
coatings, 2) bioactive sol-gel glasses, 3) doped sol-gel matrices as biological and chemical
sensors and 4) sol-gel matrices with entrapped living organisms.

The synergy between soft lithography and sol-gel has been explored before in the
production of membranes and waveguides with a feature size of 1 μm [137]. Figure 8 shows
anisotropic and isotropic PDMS molds and microstructured silica coatings produced by sol-
gel. Specific shapes and dimensions can be selected depending on the application [138].
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 291

3.2. Bioactive Micropatterned Surfaces

Ceramic nanoparticles can be added to silica thin films in order to increase bioactivity and
contact surface area. Hydroxyapatite (HA) is one of the most widely used synthetic calcium
phosphates due to its chemical similarities to the inorganic component of hard tissues.

Figure 9. Silica coatings with bioactive Portland cement (PC) particles. SEM images of Portland cement
particles (a) Energy Dispersive Spectrum of PC particles (b) micropatterned coating produced by dual
(c) and single molding (d) Saos-2 osteoblast cells responses to the produced coatings. Dual (e) and
single (f) molding.

HA exhibits exceptional biocompatibility and bioactivity, key features for the formation of a
direct and strong interface with bone, and in addition, osteoconductivity, which is the
ability to serve as a template for the local formation and growth of new bone [139-141].
Current research is focused on the development of new HA formulations with properties
closer to those of living bone, such as nano-sized and monolithic structures [139, 142].
Compared to conventional ceramic formulations, nanophase HA properties such as surface
grain size, pore size, wettability, etc., could control protein interactions, thus modulating
osteoblast adhesion and long-term functionality [95, 143] . These implant materials are
292 Cell Interaction

suitable for bone replacement and could be useful for additional functions, such as the
release of drugs, growth factors, or other substances [144].
Portland cement based materials (e.g. MTA) have been extensively used in the dentistry field
for stimulating the formation of cement and dentin (Figure 9a-b) [145]. The high content of
Ca(OH)2 of hydrated Portland cement causes it to have an extremely basic pH (~12.5-13.0).
This basic pH has been shown to be advantageous for endodontic applications as it prevents
bacterial contamination. Moreover, the Ca(OH)2 released under physiological conditions
interacts with phosphates in the medium to produce rapid precipitation of amorphous apatite.
However, previous research by Gallego-Perez, et al. showed that the showed that the Ca(OH)2
present in hydrated Portland cement could be extremely cytotoxic [146, 147].

Figure 10. Stamping silica coatings with bioactive particles via single or dual molding technique [148-150].

Such toxic effect effect may not be desirable in certain applications, like implants, as it will
prevent adequate cell adhesion and propagation on the surface and cause the formation of a
large necrotic zone around the implant after placement, provoking a chronic inflammatory
response by the host, which could potentially lead to total rejection of the implant. To avoid
this, Gallego-Perez, et al. developed a simple strategy to obtain cytocompatible Portland
cement based on the carbonation of the paste. The CO2 introduced during the hydration of
Portland cement reacts with the Ca(OH)2 that is being formed to produce calcium carbonate
(CaCO3), which decreases the pH of the cement (~7.4), and provides a more compatible
environment for cell growth [146, 147, 151]. More recently, a new method was developed
(Figure 10) for the production of cytocompatible Portland cement microparticles, which
could be incorporated, along with nano-hydroxyapatite particles, in micropatterned
bioactive coatings (Figure 9c-f) of interest to dental implantology [148-150].
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 293

4. Future considerations
Dental implantology is still an area of active research. A growing number of biomaterials,
implant surfaces, and geometries, are currently available in the market. However, independent
of the selected implant system, a successful therapy always results from the proper interplay
between the implant, surrounding soft/hard tissues, and the oral environment.
Different approaches are constantly being developed to modulate the response of MSCs as
precursors of differentiated cells. MSCs cells from craniofacial niches are desirable for the
repair or replacement of soft and hard oral tissues. Although a host of surface modification
strategies can be implemented, micro-/ nanoengineered surfaces have shown great promise for
this application, in part due to their ability to properly control cell and tissue adhesion to the
implant surface. A close apposition of gingival tissues helps to prevent apical migration of
bacteria, which could be responsible for the resorption of the bone crest and implant failure.
Micro-/nanopatterned surfaces are an interesting model to study the basic phenomena
associated with osseointegration and biofilm formation on dental materials. In addition, a
number of other micro-/nanoscale technologies also facilitate the development of more
complex model systems. As an example, microfluidic devices could help to study biofilm
formation on micro-/nanoengineered surfaces under dynamic flow, thus resembling more
closely the in vivo conditions.
Finally, the synergy between soft lithography and sol-gel chemistry provides several
possibilities to develop a new generation of dental implants with micro-/nanopatterned hard
surfaces that may lead to improved osseointegration and guided soft/hard tissue regeneration.

Author details
A. Pelaez-Vargas*2
INEB - Instituto de Engenharia Biomédica, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Universidade do Porto - Faculdade de Engenharia (FEUP), Departamento de Engenharia
Metalúrgica e Materiais, Porto, Portugal
Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Facultad de Odontología, Medellín, Colombia

A. Carvalho, L. Grenho and F.J Monteiro

INEB - Instituto de Engenharia Biomédica, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Universidade do Porto - Faculdade de Engenharia (FEUP), Departamento de Engenharia
Metalúrgica e Materiais, Porto, Portugal

D. Gallego-Perez, N. Higuita-Castro and D.J. Hansford

Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University and Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Center - NSF, Columbus (OH), USA

J.A. Arismendi
Universidad de Antioquia, Facultad de Odontología, Medellín, Colombia

*2 Corresponding Author
294 Cell Interaction

M.H. Fernandes
Universidade do Porto – Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Porto, Portugal
M.P. Ferraz
INEB - Instituto de Engenharia Biomédica, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
CEBIMED – Centro de Estudos em Biomedicina, Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal

Acknowledgements
This work was supported partially by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation
(Scholarship FCT/SFRH/BD/36220/2007 and Grant No. FCT/PTDC/CTM/100120/2008
“Bonamidi”), CRUP – Acções integradas Luso-Espanholas: E46/09, Acciones integradas
Hispano-Portuguesas, MICINN: HP2008-0075. NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Center fellowship (NSF, Grant No.EEC-0425626), and an U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific
Research MURI (Grant No.F49620-03-1-0421).

5. References
[1] Petersen P E (2003) The World Oral Health Report 2003: continuous improvement of
oral health in the 21st century. The approach of the WHO Global Oral Health
Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 31: 3-24.
[2] Okeson J P (2003), Causes of functional disturbances in the masticatory system in
Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion, Okeson J P. London:
Mosby 149-189 p.
[3] Sennerby L (2008) Dental implants: matters of course and controversies. Periodontol
2000. 47: 9-14.
[4] Albrektsson T, Sennerby L, and Wennerberg A (2008) State of the art of oral implants.
Periodontol 2000. 47: 15-26.
[5] Jaffin R A and Berman C L (1991) The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV
bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 62: 2-4.
[6] Moy P K, Medina D, Shetty V, and Aghaloo T L (2005) Dental implant failure rates and
associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 20: 569-77.
[7] Al-Zahrani M S (2008) Implant therapy in aggressive periodontitis patients: a systematic
review and clinical implications. Quintessence Int. 39: 211-5.
[8] das Neves F D, Fones D, Bernardes S R, do Prado C J, and Neto A J (2006) Short
implants--an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 21: 86-93.
[9] Arlin M L (2006) Short dental implants as a treatment option: results from an
observational study in a single private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 21: 769-76.
[10] Fugazzotto P A (2008) Shorter implants in clinical practice: rationale and treatment
results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 23: 487-96.
[11] Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, and Kultje C (2005) Evaluation of patient and implant
characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 20: 220-30.
[12] Branemark P I, Zarb G, and Albrektsson T Tissue-integrated prostheses. Osseointegration in
clinical dentistry. 1985, Chicago: Quintessence Publishing.
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 295

[13] Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark P I, and Jemt T (1990) Long-term follow-up
study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 5: 347-59.
[14] Klinge B, Hultin M, and Berglundh T (2005) Peri-implantitis. Dent Clin North Am. 49:
661-76.
[15] Esposito M, Hirsch J-M, Lekholm U, and Thomsen P (1998) Biological factors
contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and
epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci. 106: 527-551.
[16] Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrassi A, and Torricelli P (2002) Bacterial colonization of
zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
17: 793-8.
[17] Tanner A, Maiden M F J, Lee K, Shulman L B, and Weber H P (1997) Dental Implant
Infections. Clin Infec Dis. 25: S213-S217.
[18] Leonhardt A, Renvert S, and Dahlen G (1999) Microbial findings at failing implants.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 10: 339-45.
[19] Lalor P A, Revell P A, Gray A B, Wright S, Railton G T, and Freeman M A (1991)
Sensitivity to titanium. A cause of implant failure? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 73: 25-8.
[20] Boyan B, Lohmann C, Dean D, Sylvia V, Cochran D, and Schwartz Z (2001)
Mechanisms involved in osteoblast response to implant surface morphology. Ann Rev
Mater Res. 31: 357.
[21] Brett P M, Harle J, Salih V, Mihoc R, Olsen I, Jones F H, and Tonetti M (2004) Roughness
response genes in osteoblasts. Bone. 35: 124-33.
[22] Robey P G and Bianco P (2006) The use of adult stem cells in rebuilding the human face.
J Am Dent Assoc. 137: 961.
[23] Bernardo M, Locatelli F, and Fibbe W E (2009) Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: A Novel
Treatment Modality for Tissue Repair. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1176: 101-117.
[24] Akintoye S O, Lam T, Shi S, Brahim J, Collins M T, and Robey P G (2006) Skeletal site-
specific characterization of orofacial and iliac crest human bone marrow stromal cells in
same individuals. Bone. 38: 758-68.
[25] Machado E, Fernandes M H, and Gomes P D (2011) Dental stem cells for craniofacial
tissue engineering. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 113: 728-733.
[26] Tuan R (2011) Role of adult stem/progenitor cells in osseointegration and implant
loosening. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 26: 5-62.
[27] Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini F C, Krause D S, Deans
R J, Keating A, Prockop D J, and Horwitz E M (2006) Minimal criteria for defining
multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy
position statement. Cytotherapy. 8: 315-317.
[28] Coelho M J, Trigo Cabral A, and Fernandes M H (2000) Human bone cell cultures in
biocompatibility testing. Part I: osteoblastic differentiation of serially passaged human
bone marrow cells cultured in [alpha]-MEM and in DMEM. Biomaterials. 21: 1087-1094.
[29] Aldahmash A, Haack-Sørensen M, Al-Nbaheen M, Harkness L, Abdallah B, and
Kassem M (2011) Human Serum is as Efficient as Fetal Bovine Serum in Supporting
Proliferation and Differentiation of Human Multipotent Stromal (Mesenchymal) Stem
Cells In Vitro and In Vivo. Stem Cell Rev. 7: 860-8.
296 Cell Interaction

[30] Deorosan B and Nauman E A (2011) The Role of Glucose, Serum, and Three
Dimensional Cell Culture on the Metabolism of Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal
Stem Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2011: 429187.
[31] Gomes P S and Fernandes M H (2007) Effect of therapeutic levels of doxycycline and
minocycline in the proliferation and differentiation of human bone marrow osteoblastic
cells. Arch Oral Biol. 52: 251-259.
[32] Coelho M J and Fernandes M H (2000) Human bone cell cultures in biocompatibility
testing. Part II: effect of ascorbic acid,[beta]-glycerophosphate and dexamethasone on
osteoblastic differentiation. Biomaterials. 21: 1095-1102.
[33] Amaral M, Costa M A, Lopes M A, Silva R F, Santos J D, and Fernandes M H (2002)
Si(3)N(4)-bioglass composites stimulate the proliferation of MG63 osteoblast-like cells
and support the osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow cells. Biomaterials.
23: 4897-906.
[34] Albrektsson T and Wennerberg A (2004) Oral implant surfaces: Part 1 - review focusing
on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to
them. Int J Prosthodont. 17: 536-43.
[35] Tomas H, Carvalho G S, Fernandes M H, Freire A P, and Abrantes L M (1997) The use
of rat, rabbit or human bone marrow derived cells for cytocompatibility evaluation of
metallic elements. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 8: 233-8.
[36] Morais S, Sousa J P, Fernandes M H, Carvalho G S, de Bruijn J D, and van Blitterswijk C
A (1998) Effects of AISI 316L corrosion products in in vitro bone formation.
Biomaterials. 19: 999-1007.
[37] Gomes P S, Botelho C, Lopes M A, Santos J D, and Fernandes M H (2010) Evaluation of
human osteoblastic cell response to plasma-sprayed silicon-substituted hydroxyapatite
coatings over titanium substrates. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 94: 337-46.
[38] Whittaker C J, Klier C M, and Kolenbrander P E (1996) Mechanisms of adhesion by oral
bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 50: 513-52.
[39] Kolenbrander P E, Andersen R N, Blehert D S, Egland P G, Foster J S, and Palmer R J
(2002) Communication among oral bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 66: 486-505.
[40] Burgers R, Gerlach T, Hahnel S, Schwarz F, Handel G, and Gosau M (2010) In vivo and
in vitro biofilm formation on two different titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral
Implants Res. 21: 156-64.
[41] Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, and Quirynen M (2006) Effect of material
characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 17: 68-81.
[42] Marsh P D, Moter A, and Devine D A (2011) Dental plaque biofilms: communities,
conflict and control. Periodontol 2000. 55: 16-35.
[43] Hannig C and Hannig M (2009) The oral cavity--a key system to understand
substratum-dependent bioadhesion on solid surfaces in man. Clin Oral Investig. 13:
123-39.
[44] Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, and Burgers R (2009) Surface characterization of
dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater. 25: 969-75.
[45] Lee A and Wang H L (2010) Biofilm related to dental implants. Implant Dent. 19: 387-93.
[46] Marsh P D (2004) Dental plaque as a microbial biofilm. Caries Res. 38: 204-11.
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 297

[47] Scannapieco F A (1994) Saliva-bacterium interactions in oral microbial ecology. Crit Rev
Oral Biol Med. 5: 203-48.
[48] Heuer W, Elter C, Demling A, Neumann A, Suerbaum S, Hannig M, Heidenblut T, Bach
F W, and Stiesch-Scholz M (2007) Analysis of early biofilm formation on oral implants
in man. J Oral Rehabil. 34: 377-82.
[49] Branda S S, Vik S, Friedman L, and Kolter R (2005) Biofilms: the matrix revisited.
Trends Microbiol. 13: 20-6.
[50] An Y H and Friedman R J (1998) Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to
biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 43: 338-48.
[51] Quirynen M and Bollen C M (1995) The influence of surface roughness and surface-free
energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J
Clin Periodontol. 22: 1-14.
[52] Faltermeier A, Burgers R, and Rosentritt M (2008) Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus
mutans to esthetic bracket materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 133: S99-103.
[53] Buergers R, Rosentritt M, and Handel G (2007) Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus
mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material. J Prosthet Dent. 98: 461-9.
[54] Shaddox L M, Alfant B, Tobler J, and Walker C (2010) Perpetuation of subgingival
biofilms in an in vitro model. Mol Oral Microbiol. 25: 81-7.
[55] Coenye T and Nelis H J (2010) In vitro and in vivo model systems to study microbial
biofilm formation. J Microbiol Methods. 83: 89-105.
[56] Sissons C H (1997) Artificial dental plaque biofilm model systems. Adv Dent Res. 11:
110-26.
[57] McBain A J (2009) Chapter 4: In vitro biofilm models: an overview. Adv Appl
Microbiol. 69: 99-132.
[58] Guggenheim B, Guggenheim M, Gmur R, Giertsen E, and Thurnheer T (2004) Application
of the Zurich biofilm model to problems of cariology. Caries Res. 38: 212-22.
[59] Exterkate R A, Crielaard W, and Ten Cate J M (2010) Different response to amine
fluoride by Streptococcus mutans and polymicrobial biofilms in a novel high-
throughput active attachment model. Caries Res. 44: 372-9.
[60] Benoit M R, Conant C G, Ionescu-Zanetti C, Schwartz M, and Matin A (2010) New
device for high-throughput viability screening of flow biofilms. Appl Environ
Microbiol. 76: 4136-42.
[61] Stepanovic S, Vukovic D, Hola V, Di Bonaventura G, Djukic S, Cirkovic I, and Ruzicka F
(2007) Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: overview of testing conditions and
practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci.
APMIS. 115: 891-9.
[62] Merritt J H, Kadouri D E, and O'Toole G A (2005) Growing and analyzing static
biofilms. Curr Protoc Microbiol. Chapter 1: Unit 1B 1.
[63] Silva T C, Pereira A F, Exterkate R A, Bagnato V S, Buzalaf M A, Machado M A, Ten
Cate J M, Crielaard W, and Deng D M (2012) Application of an active attachment model
as a high-throughput demineralization biofilm model. J Dent. 40: 41-7.
[64] Deng D M, Hoogenkamp M A, Exterkate R A, Jiang L M, van der Sluis L W, Ten Cate J
M, and Crielaard W (2009) Influence of Streptococcus mutans on Enterococcus faecalis
biofilm formation. J Endod. 35: 1249-52.
298 Cell Interaction

[65] ten Cate J M (2006) Biofilms, a new approach to the microbiology of dental plaque.
Odontology. 94: 1-9.
[66] Wimpenny J W (1997) The validity of models. Adv Dent Res. 11: 150-9.
[67] Donlan R M, Piede J A, Heyes C D, Sanii L, Murga R, Edmonds P, El-Sayed I, and El-
Sayed M A (2004) Model system for growing and quantifying Streptococcus
pneumoniae biofilms in situ and in real time. Appl Environ Microbiol. 70: 4980-8.
[68] Goeres D M, Loetterle L R, Hamilton M A, Murga R, Kirby D W, and Donlan R M (2005)
Statistical assessment of a laboratory method for growing biofilms. Microbiology. 151:
757-62.
[69] Yawata Y, Toda K, Setoyama E, Fukuda J, Suzuki H, Uchiyama H, and Nomura N
(2010) Bacterial growth monitoring in a microfluidic device by confocal reflection
microscopy. J Biosci Bioeng. 110: 130-3.
[70] Wang C C, Hsu Y C, Hsieh M C, Yang S P, Su F C, and Lee T M (2008) Effects of nano-
surface properties on initial osteoblast adhesion and Ca/P adsorption ability for
titanium alloys. Nanotechnology. 19: 335709.
[71] Flemming R G, Murphy C J, Abrams G A, Goodman S L, and Nealey P F (1999) Effects of
synthetic micro- and nano-structured surfaces on cell behavior. Biomaterials. 20: 573-88.
[72] Zhao G, Raines A L, Wieland M, Schwartz Z, and Boyan B D (2007) Requirement for
both micron- and submicron scale structure for synergistic responses of osteoblasts to
substrate surface energy and topography. Biomaterials. 28: 2821-9.
[73] Wilkinson C D W, Riehle M, Wood M, Gallagher J, and Curtis A S G (2002) The use of
materials patterned on a nano-and micro-metric scale in cellular engineering. Mater Sci
Eng C. 19: 263-269.
[74] Yim E K F and Leong K W (2005) Significance of synthetic nanostructures in dictating
cellular response. Nanomedicine. 1: 10-21.
[75] Francois P, Vaudaux P, Taborelli M, Tonetti M, Lew D P, and Descouts P (1997)
Influence of surface treatments developed for oral implants on the physical and
biological properties of titanium. (II) Adsorption isotherms and biological activity of
immobilized fibronectin. Clin Oral Implants Res. 8: 217-25.
[76] Keller J C, Schneider G B, Stanford C M, and Kellogg B (2003) Effects of implant
microtopography on osteoblast cell attachment. Implant Dent. 12: 175-81.
[77] Martin J Y, Schwartz Z, Hummert T W, Schraub D M, Simpson J, Lankford J, Jr., Dean D
D, Cochran D L, and Boyan B D (1995) Effect of titanium surface roughness on
proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells
(MG63). J Biomed Mater Res. 29: 389-401.
[78] Raz P, Lohmann C H, Turner J, Wang L, Poythress N, Blanchard C, Boyan B D, and
Schwartz Z (2004) 1alpha,25(OH)2D3 regulation of integrin expression is substrate
dependent. J Biomed Mater Res A. 71: 217-25.
[79] Brunette D M (1988) The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 3: 231-46.
[80] Curtis A and Wilkinson C (1997) Topographical control of cells. Biomaterials. 18: 1573-
83.
[81] Curtis A S G and Clark P (1990) The effects of topographic and mechanical properties of
materials on cell behavior. Crit. Rev. Biocompat. 5: 343-363.
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 299

[82] Clark P (1994) Cell behaviour on micropatterned surfaces. Biosens Bioelectron. 9: 657-
661.
[83] von Recum A F and van Kooten T G (1995) The influence of micro-topography on cellular
response and the implications for silicone implants. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 7: 181-98.
[84] Weiss P (1958) Cell contact. Int Rev Cyt. 7: 391-423.
[85] Singhvi R, Stephanopoulos G, and Wang D I (1994) Effects of substratum morphology
on cell physiology. Biotechnol Bioeng. 43: 764-71.
[86] Rosenberg M D (1963) Cell guidance by alterations in monomolecular films. Science.
139: 411.
[87] Rosenberg M D (1962) Long-range interactions between cell and substratum. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 48: 1342.
[88] Curtis A S G, Gadegaard N, Dalby M J, Riehle M O, Wilkinson C D W, and Aitchison G
(2004) Cells react to nanoscale order and symmetry in their surroundings. IEEE Trans
Nanobioscience. 3: 61-65.
[89] Kim D H, Kim P, Song I, Cha J M, Lee S H, Kim B, and Suh K Y (2006) Guided three-
dimensional growth of functional cardiomyocytes on polyethylene glycol
nanostructures. Langmuir. 22: 5419-26.
[90] Wood M A, Wilkinson C D, and Curtis A S (2006) The effects of colloidal
nanotopography on initial fibroblast adhesion and morphology. IEEE Trans
Nanobioscience. 5: 20-31.
[91] Sapelkin A V, Bayliss S C, Unal B, and Charalambou A (2006) Interaction of B50 rat
hippocampal cells with stain-etched porous silicon. Biomaterials. 27: 842-6.
[92] Zhu B, Lu Q, Yin J, Hu J, and Wang Z (2005) Alignment of osteoblast-like cells and cell-
produced collagen matrix induced by nanogrooves. Tissue Eng. 11: 825-34.
[93] Zanello L P, Zhao B, Hu H, and Haddon R C (2006) Bone cell proliferation on carbon
nanotubes. Nano Lett. 6: 562-7.
[94] Miller D C, Thapa A, Haberstroh K M, and Webster T J (2004) Endothelial and vascular
smooth muscle cell function on poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) with nano-structured
surface features. Biomaterials. 25: 53-61.
[95] Webster T J, Schadler L S, Siegel R W, and Bizios R (2001) Mechanisms of enhanced
osteoblast adhesion on nanophase alumina involve vitronectin. Tissue Eng. 7: 291-301.
[96] Park J Y, Gemmell C H, and Davies J E (2001) Platelet interactions with titanium:
modulation of platelet activity by surface topography. Biomaterials. 22: 2671-2682.
[97] Body S C (1996) Platelet activation and interactions with the microvasculature. J
Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 27: 13.
[98] Hong J, Andersson J, Ekdahl K N, Elgue G, Axén N, Larsson R, and Nilsson B (1999)
Titanium is a highly thrombogenic biomaterial: possible implications for osteogenesis.
Thromb Haemost. 82: 58-64.
[99] Mendonca G, Mendonca D, Aragao F J L, and Cooper L F (2008) Advancing dental
implant surface technology - from micron- to nanotopography. Biomaterials. 29: 3822-
3835.
[100] Grew J C, Ricci J L, and Alexander H (2008) Connective-tissue responses to defined
biomaterial surfaces. II. Behavior of rat and mouse fibroblasts cultured on
microgrooved substrates. J Biomed Mater Res A. 85: 326-335.
300 Cell Interaction

[101] Kokubo T and Takadama H (2006) How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone
bioactivity? Biomaterials. 27: 2907-2915.
[102] Fewster S D, Coombs R R H, Kitson J, and Zhou S (1994) Precise ultrafine surface
texturing of implant materials to improve cellular adhesion and biocompatibility.
Nanobiology. 3: 201-210.
[103] Wan Y, Wang Y, Liu Z, Qu X, Han B, Bei J, and Wang S (2005) Adhesion and
proliferation of OCT-1 osteoblast-like cells on micro-and nano-scale topography
structured poly (L-lactide). Biomaterials. 26: 4453-4459.
[104] Popat K C, Leoni L, Grimes C A, and Desai T A (2007) Influence of engineered titania
nanotubular surfaces on bone cells. Biomaterials. 28: 3188-97.
[105] Popat K C, Chatvanichkul K I, Barnes G L, Latempa T J, Jr., Grimes C A, and Desai T A
(2007) Osteogenic differentiation of marrow stromal cells cultured on nanoporous
alumina surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A. 80: 955-64.
[106] Matsuzaka K, Walboomers F, de Ruijter A, and Jansen J A (2000) Effect of microgrooved
poly-l-lactic (PLA) surfaces on proliferation, cytoskeletal organization, and mineralized
matrix formation of rat bone marrow cells. Clin Oral Implants Res. 11: 325-33.
[107] Matsuzaka K, Walboomers X F, de Ruijter J E, and Jansen J A (1999) The effect of poly-
L-lactic acid with parallel surface micro groove on osteoblast-like cells in vitro.
Biomaterials. 20: 1293-301.
[108] Groessner-Schreiber B and Tuan R S (1992) Enhanced extracellular matrix production
and mineralization by osteoblasts cultured on titanium surfaces in vitro. J Cell Sci. 101:
209-217.
[109] Abron A, Hopfensperger M, Thompson J, and Cooper L F (2001) Evaluation of a
predictive model for implant surface topography effects on early osseointegration in the
rat tibia model. J Prosthet Dent. 85: 40-6.
[110] Dalby M J, McCloy D, Robertson M, Agheli H, Sutherland D, Affrossman S, and
Oreffo R O (2006) Osteoprogenitor response to semi-ordered and random
nanotopographies. Biomaterials. 27: 2980-7.
[111] Dalby M J, Gadegaard N, Tare R, Andar A, Riehle M O, Herzyk P, Wilkinson C D, and
Oreffo R O (2007) The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using
nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater. 6: 997-1003.
[112] Zhao L, Mei S, Chu P K, Zhang Y, and Wu Z (2010) The influence of hierarchical
hybrid micro/nano-textured titanium surface with titania nanotubes on osteoblast
functions. Biomaterials. 31: 5072-5082.
[113] Engel E, Martinez E, Mills C A, Funes M, Planell J A, and Samitier J (2009)
Mesenchymal stem cell differentiation on microstructured poly (methyl methacrylate)
substrates. Ann Anat. 191: 136-44.
[114] Curtis A and Wilkinson C (2001) Nanotechniques and approaches in biotechnology.
Trends Biotechnol. 19: 97-101.
[115] Dalby M J, Riehle M O, Sutherland D S, Agheli H, and Curtis A S G (2004) Changes in
fibroblast morphology in response to nano-columns produced by colloidal lithography.
Biomaterials. 25: 5415-5422.
 Micropatterned Coatings for Guided Tissue Regeneration in Dental Implantology 301

[116] Dalby M J, Berry C C, Riehle M O, Sutherland D S, Agheli H, and Curtis A S G (2004)

Attempted endocytosis of nano-environment produced by colloidal lithography by
human fibroblasts. Exp Cell Res. 295: 387-394.
[117] Kunzler T P, Huwiler C, Drobek T, Voros J, and Spencer N D (2007) Systematic study
of osteoblast response to nanotopography by means of nanoparticle-density gradients.
Biomaterials. 28: 5000-5006.
[118] Teixeira A I, Nealey P F, and Murphy C J (2004) Responses of human keratocytes to
micro- and nanostructured substrates. J Biomed Mater Res A. 71: 369-76.
[119] Lee K B, Park S J, Mirkin C A, Smith J C, and Mrksich M (2002) Protein nanoarrays
generated by dip-pen nanolithography. Science. 295: 1702-5.
[120] Karuri N W, Liliensiek S, Teixeira A I, Abrams G, Campbell S, Nealey P F, and
Murphy C J (2004) Biological length scale topography enhances cell-substratum
adhesion of human corneal epithelial cells. J Cell Sci. 117: 3153-64.
[121] Baac H, Lee J H, Seo J M, Park T H, Chung H, Lee S D, and Kim S J (2004) Submicron-
scale topographical control of cell growth using holographic surface relief grating.
Mater Sci Eng C. 24: 209-212.
[122] Berry C C, Dalby M J, McCloy D, and Affrossman S (2005) The fibroblast response to
tubes exhibiting internal nanotopography. Biomaterials. 26: 4985-92.
[123] Xia Y and Whitesides G M (1998) Soft Lithography. Angew Chem Int Edit. 37: 550-575.
[124] Xia Y and Whitesides G M (1998) Soft lithography. Ann Rev Mater Sci. 28: 153-184.
[125] Ferrari M, Desai T, and Bhatia S (2006), Therapeutic and Micro/Nanotechnology in
BioMEMS and Biomedical Technology, Ferrari M. New York: Springer xxi p.
[126] Arkles B (2001) Commercial application of Sol-Gel derived Hybrid materials. MRS
bulletin. 5: 402-407.
[127] Chou T, P. and Cao G (2003) Adhesion of Sol-Gel-Derived Organic-Inorganic Hybrid
Coatings on Polyester. J Sol-Gel Sci Techn. V27: 31-41.
[128] Nazeri A, Trzaskoma-Paulette P P, and Bauer D (1997) Synthesis and Properties of
Cerium and Titanium Oxide Thin Coatings for Corrosion Protection of 304 Stainless
Steel. J Sol-Gel Sci Techn. V10: 317-331.
[129] Zhang Q, Whatmore R, and Vickers M E (1999) A Comparison of the Nanostructure of
Lead Zirconate, Lead Titanate and Lead Zirconate Titanate Sols. J Sol-Gel Sci Techn.
V15: 13-22.
[130] Zhong J and Greenspan D C (2000) Processing and properties of sol-gel bioactive
glasses. J Biomed Mater Res. 53: 694-701.
[131] Livage J (1997) Sol-gel processes. Current Opin Solid St Mater Sc. 2: 132-138.
[132] Dimitriev Y, Ivanova Y, and Iordanova R (2008) History of Sol-Gel Science and
Technology (Review). J Univ Chem Technol Metal. 43: 181-192.
[133] Guglielmi M (2010), Glass: Sol-gel coatings in Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and
Technology, Buschow K H J, Cahn R, Flemings M, Ilschner B, Kramer E, Mahajan S, and
Veyssiere P. Amsterdam: Elsevier 3575-3579 p.
[134] Brinker C, Ashley C, Cairncross R, Chen K, Hurd A, Reed S, Samuel J, Schunk PR, RW
S, and Scotto C (1996), Sol-gel derived ceramic film - fundamentals and applications in
Metallurgical and ceramic protective coatings, Stern K H. London: Chapman & Hall
112-151 p.
302 Cell Interaction

[135] Strawbridge I (1992), Glass formation by the sol-gel process in High-performance

glasses, Cable M a P, JM. NJ: Chapman and Hall 51-85 p.
[136] Hench L L (1997) Sol-gel materials for bioceramic applications. Curr Opin Solid State
Mater Sci. 2: 604-610.
[137] Marzolin C, Smith S P, Prentiss M, and Whitesides G M (1998) Fabrication of Glass
Microstructures by Micro-Molding of Sol-Gel Precursors. Adv Mater. 10: 571-574.
[138] Pelaez-Vargas A, Gallego-Perez D, Ferrell N, Fernandes M H, Hansford D, and
Monteiro F J (2010) Early spreading and propagation of human bone marrow stem cells
on isotropic and anisotropic topographies of silica thin films produced via
microstamping. Microsc Microanal. 16: 670-6.
[139] Ferraz M P, Monteiro F J, and Manuel C M (2004) Hydroxyapatite nanoparticles: A
review of preparation methodologies. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2: 74-80.
[140] Best S M, Porter A E, Thian E S, and Huang J (2008) Bioceramics: Past, present and for
the future. J Eur Ceram Soc. 28: 1319-1327.
[141] Vallet-Regi M (2001) Ceramics for medical applications. Journal of the Chemical
Society-Dalton Transactions. 97-108.
[142] Chevalier J and Gremillard L (2009) Ceramics for medical applications: A picture for
the next 20 years. J Eur Ceram Soc. 29: 1245-1255.
[143] Manuel C M, Ferraz M P, and Monteiro F J (2003) Synthesis of hydroxyapatite and
tricalcium phosphate nanoparticles preliminary studies. Bioceramics 15. 240-2: 555-558.
[144] Muller-Mai C M, Stupp S I, Voigt C, and Gross U (1995) Nanoapatite and
organoapatite implants in bone: histology and ultrastructure of the interface. J Biomed
Mater Res. 29: 9-18.
[145] Sarkar N K, Caicedo R, Ritwik P, Moiseyeva R, and Kawashima I (2005) Physicochemical
basis of the biologic properties of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 31: 97-100.
[146] Gallego-Perez D, Higuita-Castro N, Quiroz F G, Posada O M, Lopez L E, Litsky A S,
and Hansford D J (2011) Portland cement for bone tissue engineering: Effects of
processing and metakaolin blends. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 98B: 308-15.
[147] Higuita-Castro N, Gallego-Perez D, Pelaez-Vargas A, Garcia Quiroz F, Posada O M,
Lopez L E, Sarassa C A, Agudelo-Florez P, Monteiro F J, Litsky A S, and Hansford D J
(2012) Reinforced Portland cement porous scaffolds for load-bearing bone tissue
engineering applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 100B: 501-507.
[148] Pelaez-Vargas A, Gallego-Perez D, Higuita-Castro N, Ferrell N, Hansford D, and
Monteiro F Silica coatings with Portland cement particles for dental implant surfaces
based on sol-gel micromolding. in Biomedical Engineering Society 2009. Pittsburg, PA:
BMES CD PS 10A-23
[149] Pelaez-Vargas A, Higuita-Castro N, Gallego-Perez D, Hansford D, and Monteiro F
(2010) Portland particulated silica coatings – Comparison between two coating
techniques. J Dental Research. 89: 4006.
[150] Carvalho A, Pelaez-Vargas A, Gallego-Perez D, Fernandes M, Hansford D, and
Monteiro F (2011) Adhesion and proliferation of mesenchymal stem cells on
micropatterned thin films modified with nanohydroxyapatite particles. Bone. 48: S106.
[151] Gallego D, Ferrell N, Sun Y, and Hansford D J (2008) Multilayer micromolding of
degradable polymer tissue engineering scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 28: 353-358.

View publication stats