Current Perspectives on Additive Manufacturing and Titanium Surface Nanotopography in Bone Formation

• Published in: Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials Vol. 113; no. 3; p. e35554
• Main Authors: da Costa Valente, Mariana Lima, Uehara, Lívia Maiumi, Lisboa Batalha, Rodolfo, Bolfarini, Claudemiro, Trevisan, Rayana Longo Bighetti, Fernandes, Roger Rodrigo, Beloti, Marcio Mateus, dos Reis, Andréa Cândido
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2025
• Subjects: Additive manufacturing; Alkaline phosphatase; Alloys - chemistry; Animals; Atomic force microscopy; Biological analysis; Bone growth; Cbfa-1 protein; Cell differentiation; Cell Line; Cell morphology; Cell viability; Chemical treatment; Crystal lattices; Differentiation (biology); Free energy; Gene expression; Manufacturing; Materials Testing; Mice; Mineralization; Osteoblastogenesis; Osteoblasts; Osteoblasts - cytology; Osteoblasts - metabolism; Osteogenesis; Osteogenesis - drug effects; Physicochemical properties; Production methods; Sodium hydroxide; Surface Properties; Surface roughness; Surface treatment; Titanium - chemistry; Titanium - pharmacology; Variance analysis; Zeta potential; osteoblastic cell behavior; titanium dental implants; additive manufacturing; physicochemical properties; surface characterization; implant topography
• ISSN: 1552-4973; 1552-4981; 1552-4981
• DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.35554

This study aimed to assess the impact of manufacturing methods (conventional and additive manufacturing) and surface treatments (polished and nanotopographic) on the physicochemical properties of Ti6Al4V alloy and their correlation with osteoblast cellular behavior. The evaluated groups were Machined Discs (MD), Machined Discs with Treatment (MD‐WT), Additive‐manufactured Discs (AD), and Additive‐manufactured Discs with Treatment (AD‐WT). Surface analyses included SEM, AFM, surface roughness, EDS, XRD, surface free energy, and zeta potential. MC3T3‐E1 cells were cultured for biological assessments, including cell morphology, viability, gene expression, alkaline phosphatase activity, and mineralization. ANOVA and Holm‐Sidak tests were applied ( p < 0.05). MD exhibited grooved topography, AD had partially fused spherical particles, while MD‐WT and AD‐WT showed patterns from chemical treatment (H 3 PO 4 + NaOH). EDS identified additional ions in MD‐WT and AD‐WT. XRD patterns indicated crystal lattice orientation differences. MD‐WT and AD‐WT displayed higher surface free energy than MD and AD ( p < 0.05). AD had greater roughness (Sa 6.98 μm, p < 0.05). Biological analyses revealed higher cell viability for MD and AD ( p < 0.001), higher ALP activity in MD, and lower in AD‐WT. Gene expression varied, with MD showing higher Alpl , Ibsp , and Bglap ( p < 0.001), and AD‐WT showing higher Runx2 ( p < 0.001). Mineralized matrix behavior was similar for MD, AD, and MD‐WT ( p > 0.05). MD and AD surfaces demonstrated superior osteogenic differentiation potential, while AD exhibited greater roughness, lower surface free energy, higher cell viability, and osteoblastic differentiation potential.