Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9010018
DC FieldValue
dc.titleModulation of osteoclast interactions with orthopaedic biomaterials
dc.contributor.authorSteffi, C
dc.contributor.authorShi, Z
dc.contributor.authorKong, C.H
dc.contributor.authorWang, W
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-09T03:12:18Z
dc.date.available2020-09-09T03:12:18Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationSteffi, C, Shi, Z, Kong, C.H, Wang, W (2018). Modulation of osteoclast interactions with orthopaedic biomaterials. Journal of Functional Biomaterials 9 (1) : 18. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9010018
dc.identifier.issn20794983
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/175068
dc.description.abstractBiomaterial integration in bone depends on bone remodelling at the bone-implant interface. Optimal balance of bone resorption by osteoclasts and bone deposition by osteoblasts is crucial for successful implantation, especially in orthopaedic surgery. Most studies examined osteoblast differentiation on biomaterials, yet few research has been conducted to explore the effect of different orthopaedic implants on osteoclast development. This review covers, in detail, the biology of osteoclasts, in vitro models of osteoclasts, and modulation of osteoclast activity by different implant surfaces, bio-ceramics, and polymers. Studies show that surface topography influence osteoclastogenesis. For instance, metal implants with rough surfaces enhanced osteoclast activity, while smooth surfaces resulted in poor osteoclast differentiation. In addition, surface modification of implants with anti-osteoporotic drug further decreased osteoclast activity. In bioceramics, osteoclast development depended on different chemical compositions. Strontium-incorporated bioceramics decreased osteoclast development, whereas higher concentrations of silica enhanced osteoclast activity. Differences between natural and synthetic polymers also modulated osteoclastogenesis. Physiochemical properties of implants affect osteoclast activity. Hence, understanding osteoclast biology and its response to the natural microarchitecture of bone are indispensable to design suitable implant interfaces and scaffolds, which will stimulate osteoclasts in ways similar to that of native bone. © 2018 by the authors.
dc.sourceUnpaywall 20200831
dc.subjectbioceramics
dc.subjectbiomaterial
dc.subjectcolony stimulating factor 1
dc.subjectinterleukin 1
dc.subjectosteoclast differentiation factor
dc.subjectosteoprotegerin
dc.subjectpolymer
dc.subjectsilicon dioxide
dc.subjectstrontium
dc.subjecttranscription factor RUNX2
dc.subjecttumor necrosis factor
dc.subjectbone mineralization
dc.subjectbone remodeling
dc.subjectcell activation
dc.subjectcell activity
dc.subjectcell differentiation
dc.subjectcell interaction
dc.subjectcell maturation
dc.subjectcell survival
dc.subjectcytokine release
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectosteoblast
dc.subjectosteoclast
dc.subjectosteoclastogenesis
dc.subjectosteolysis
dc.subjectphysical chemistry
dc.subjectprotein expression
dc.subjectprotein protein interaction
dc.subjectReview
dc.typeReview
dc.contributor.departmentDEPT OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
dc.description.doi10.3390/jfb9010018
dc.description.sourcetitleJournal of Functional Biomaterials
dc.description.volume9
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page18
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_3390_jfb9010018.pdf1.66 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

10
checked on Jan 12, 2021

Page view(s)

37
checked on Jan 15, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.