Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 15, 2026

Sequential In vivo Imaging of Osteogenic Stem/Progenitor Cells During Fracture Repair
Published on: May 23, 2014
Early cell response of osteogenic cells on differently modified implant surfaces: Sequences of cell proliferation,
Sebastian Blatt1, Andreas Max Pabst2, Eik Schiegnitz1
1Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Objectives:
Osseointegration of dental implants is a crucial prerequisite for long-term survival. Therefore, surface modifications are needed to interact with the extracellular environment and to trigger osteogenic cell responses such as cell proliferation, adherence, and differentiation. The purpose of this study was to investigate different surface modifications in vitro over 2 weeks.
Materials And Methods:
Commercially available cells from a human osteogenic cell line (HHOB-c) were cultivated on the following surfaces: titanium with smooth surfaces (polished titanium (P), machined titanium (M), polyetheretherketone (Peek)), titanium with rough and hydrophilised surfaces (acid etched titanium (A), sandblasted acid etched titanium (SA and SA2), sandblasted acid etched hydrophilised (SAH), titanium plasma painted titanium (TPS)), titanium with calcium phosphate-containing surfaces (titanium plasma painted calcium phosphate modified titanium (TPS-CaP), sandblasted calcium phosphate modified titanium (S-CaP), sandblasted acid etched calcium phosphate modified titanium (SA-CaP)), and zirconium-oxide (yttrium amplified zirconium (Z), yttrium amplified Ca2+ delivering zirconium (Z-Ca)). Tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS) served as a control. Cell count was assessed after 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 7 d, and 14 d; osteogenic cell adherence and differentiation were analysed by using cellular Quantitative Immuno-Cytochemistry (QIC) assay for alkaline phosphatase (AP), osteocalcin (OC), integrin alpha V (ITGAV), and talin (T).
Results:
All tested surfaces showed a positive influence on the differentiation and adherence of osteogenic cells, especially P, M, A, TCPS, and Peek. After 48 h, the surfaces M, SA and SAH had induced a positive influence on adherence, whereas SA2, SA, and SAH triggered proliferation after 14 d.
Conclusions:
Rough and hydrophilised surface modifications, such as SAH, trigger osteogenic cell responses. These in vitro results highlight the potential use of SAH surface modifications of dental implants and indicate further clinical studies are warranted.
More Related Videos
08:11Construction and Use of an Electrical Stimulation Chamber for Enhancing Osteogenic Differentiation in Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells In Vitro
Published on: January 31, 2019
10:21Proliferation and Differentiation of Murine Myeloid Precursor 32D/G-CSF-R Cells
Published on: February 21, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Cell-surface Signaling
Cells Coordinate Growth and Proliferation
iPS Cell Differentiation
B Cell Activation and Differentiation
When naive B cells encounter a specific antigen that can bind to the B cell receptor (BCR) on their surface, they undergo sensitization to respond to the antigen's presence. Sensitization begins with...
Diversity in Cell Signaling Responses
Graded and Abrupt Responses
Some signaling systems generate...
Cell-mediated Immune Responses