EFFECTS OF SURFACE

TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER

SURFACE PROPERTIES ON
BIOCOMPATIBILITY
A PRESENTATION BY:
APAR WASTI
SONIKA KOIRALA
BIOCOMPATIBILITY
Ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host response in a
specific application. D. Williams.
Due to the wide scope of 1st definition he tried to narrow it down to
specific subgroups:
- Biocompatibility of long term implant devices
ability of the device to perform its intended function, with the desired degree of
incorporation in the host, without eliciting any undesirable local or systemic effects
in that host.
- Biocompatibility of short term implant devices
the ability of the device to carry out its intended function within flowing blood, with
minimal interaction between device and blood that adversely affects device
performance, and without inducing uncontrolled activation of cellular or plasma
protein cascades.
- Biocompatibility of tissue engineering products
ability to perform as a substrate that will support the appropriate cellular activity,
including the facilitation of molecular and mechanical signalling systems, in order to
optimise tissue regeneration, without eliciting any undesirable effects in those cells,
or inducing any undesirable local or systemic responses in the eventual host.
BIOMATERIALS AND HUMAN
BODY INTERACTIONS
Commonly used biomaterials are mostly hydrophobic
and have high affinity to a wide variety of proteins.
After implantation, biomaterials are covered with a layer
of plasma proteins like albumin, fibrinogen, IgG etc.
Due to hydrophobic interactions, the conformation of
these proteins are altered. Their hydrophobic domains
get exposed and they become adherent to hydrophobic
surface of biomaterial.
These protein:biomaterial interactions prompt the
exposure of hidden protein structures and sequences
that serve as receptor sites for inflammatory cells,
which then initiate the foreign body reactions.
Fig: Altered
conformation of
protein to expose
hydrophobic
domains due to
protein:biomaterial
interaction
 SURFACE PROPERTIES AND
BIOCOMPATIBILITY
It is widely documented that polymer surface properties
can affect the amounts and types of bound proteins, as
well as the conformation, orientation or binding strength
of the adsorbed protein.
Wettability and bio compatibility
Hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity of a material has great
role to play in determining its biocompatibility.
Biomaterial surface with moderate hydrophilicity
improved cell growth and higher biocompatibility.
Cell adhesion can deacrease as the material becomes
very hydrophilic.
 Surface Roughness And Bio compatibility
The point to be noted in case of surface topography is
that its influence may vary on the site on which the
material is used.
For example: For osteointegration, it is an advantage
that the surface of the implant is porous.
It is however also well known that porosity will increase
the surface roughness, which is associated with an
enlarged risk on bacterial adhesion.
Surface functional groups and bio compatibility
Substantial research efforts have been placed on
studying the influence of surface functionality in the
cellular response to biomaterials.
Surface chemical functionality affects adsorbed protein
and subsequent protein:cell interactions.
 Hydrophilic functionality provides low interfacial free energy
resulting in reduced protein adsorption, cell adhesion, and
blood compatibility.
The most common functionalities investigated with relation
to biomaterial interactions are the carboxyl (-COOH),
hydroxyl (-OH), amino (-NH2), and methyl (-CH3) groups.
Examples:
Carboxyl (-COOH) hydrophilic, negatively charge
Preferentially interacts with fibronectin and albumin
Enhances fibronectin adsorption and exposure of cell
adhesive domains related to focal adhesion and cell growth
Increases nanoparticle uptake
Attenuates inflammatory responses and reduces fibrotic
capsule formation in vivo
 Methyl (-CH3) hydrophobic, neutral charge
Tightly binds fibrinogen leading to platelet accumulation
Binds IgG more tightly than other surface functional
groups
Leads to thick fibrotic capsule formation and high
recruitment of inflammatory cells in vivo
Increased leukocyte adhesion and phagocyte migration
Fig: Deposition of fibrotic tissue around the implant( drug delivery implant)
SURFACE INTERACTIONS: IN VIVO
vs. IN VITRO
Despite a significant body of in vitro results,
there are very few works which had focused on
the effects of surface functional groups in vivo.
Early results (in vitro) have shown that surface
functionality prompts different extents of acute
inflammatory responses in the order: -NH2 >
CH3 -CFx > -OH > siloxyl group.
Implants are often surrounded by thick layer of
collagenous fibrotic tissue a few days (weeks)
after implantation which serve as diffusion
barrier.
 Results using SAMs on gold have shown that
implants coated with -COOH and -OH
functionality produce thinner fibrous capsules
than -CH3 functionality (in vitro)
Same results were observed when
microspheres coated with COOH were
introduced in vivo.
However, significantly increased fibrous capsule
formation was found surrounding implants
with -OH functionality .
Hence, more in vivo studies are needed to
define the interactions between surface
functionality and host responses.
CONCLUSION
More research is needed to know exactly how
surface properties and surface functionalities effect
the biocompatibility.
In general, micro and nanoparticles with a
hydrophilic shell show decreased protein
adsorption and increased circulation time .
Surface roughness is also key factor involving
biocompatibility as surface to volume ratio has
deep impact on biocompatibilty.
With all these things in mind a better and durable
device can be made by modifying the surface
properties of materials
 THANK
YOU!
GRACIAS!
DHANYABAAD!