Nano Vision, Vol.

1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

Macrophage and Osteoblast Response to Micro and

Nano Hydroxyapatite A Review
S. BABY GAYATHRI and KAMARAJ P.*
*Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
SRM University, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu- 603203, India.
email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Bone is a connective tissue formed by the precipitation of
hydroxyapatite crystals on organic matrix. One of the most
common illnesses associated with the bone is bone fracture. The
use of implant at the affected bone region is found to be associated
with several difficulties especially due to the activity of
macrophage and osteoblast at the implanted site. Osteoblasts are
specialized fibroblast-like cells associated with the formation of
bone and macrophages, members of host immune system.
Orthopedic surgery is known to trigger a wound healing response
at the implanted site by activation of numerous immune cells long
before osteoblasts arrive. Unique higher surface area, surface
roughnesses, altered electron distribution and energetics of nanohydroxyapatite have altered the activity of macrophage and
osteoblast when coated over a substrate. An overview of
macrophage and osteoblast response to micro and nanohydroxyapatite that is involved in achieving maximal bone
response is discussed.
Keywords: Hydroxyapatite, nano-hydroxyapatite, osteoblast,
macrophage.

INTRODUCTION
Bone is an extremely dynamic
tissue, formed by the precipitation of
hydroxyapatite (HA) crystals on organic
protein matrix. HA crystals are formed when
the body cells tend to store calcium and
phosphorus in the extracellular matrix. The

precipitation of HA crystals on collagen

matrix forms bone tissue1. Besides its
significance in biology, HA is also a good
candidate for applications as catalyst2 and
gas sensors3. One of the notable bone
illnesses is bone fracture which can be
healed upon tended and supported implant.
On failure, bone fracture may lead to

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

misgrowth of bone4. In the past several

years, many cases have been reported on
bone implants and the associated difficulties
especially due to macrophage and osteoblast
responses over the implant.
Osteoblasts
are
specialized
fibroblast-like cells of primitive mesenchymal origin called osteoprogenitor cell that
originate from pluripotent mesenchymal
stem cells of the bone marrow. The evidence
of mesenchymal stem cells as precursors for
osteoblasts is based on the capacity of bone
to regenerate itself both in vivo and in vitro
by using cell populations5. It has been shown
that the bone marrow stroma have the
capacity to differentiate into osteoblasts,
chondroblasts, fibroblasts, adipocytes and
myoblasts6. Macrophages are specialized
phagocytes that play an important role in
clearance of effete host cells and molecules7,
as well as in defense against foreign
invasion, including infection, allogenic or
xenogenic transplantation and implantation.
Orthopedic surgery is known to cause
trauma to the local tissue triggering a wound
healing response activating numerous
inflammatory cells at the implant site long
before osteoblasts arrive. One type of
inflammatory cell (macrophages) migrates to
the bone implant interface and becomes
activated soon following implantation8.
Macrophages are the first line of defense
against bacteria, viruses and foreign
implanted materials. Overactivation of
macrophages can lead to the production of
pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1B, IL-6),
Chemokines (CCL22), matrix enzymes
(elastase) and other substances (PGE2),
which not only can cause osteolysis but can
also stimulate the proliferation of
fibroblasts9,10. This would decrease the

ability of osteoblasts to attach proliferate and

form bone on orthopedic implants.
Macrophages are found to actively
respond to almost all implants in vivo,
including metal11, ceramics and cements12,
polymers13,14, and protein material such as
collagen15,16 etc.
As macrophages are
members of the host immune system, their
responses to biomaterials have attracted
wide concern. HA being biocompatible,
when coated over the implant can downregulate the macrophage activities and
migration so that wound healing can occur
quickly and bone growth and mineral
deposition by osteoblasts are prompted
shortly there after. Controlling surface
feature size and corresponding surface
roughness on implants may clearly alter
immune cell responses, which would be an
extremely important consideration for the
use of nanostructured materials as improved
biomaterials. In addition, incorporation of
nanoparticles over the implant has been
found to decrease the macrophage
proliferation17 and increase osteoblast
adhesion18 at the implanted site. The
objective of this review is to discuss on the
use of micro and nano- HA coated implants
and to bring the macrophage and osteoblast
reaction at the implanted site. For an implant
to be biocompatible, the implant-bone
interface should mimic with the interfaces
naturally occurring between bones and
tendons and ligament.
MACROPHAGE AND OSTEOBLAST
RESPONSE TO HA
Many studies have been performed
regarding the macrophage proliferation and
osteoblast adhesion on different materials
that were used as surgical implants19.

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

Macrophage initiates the entire process of

phagocytosis ultimately decreasing the
ability of the osteoblast cells to get adhered
at the implant surface. The adverse effect of
synthetic compounds on growth disturbance,
migration, infection, rigidity, effects on
cellular level20 is reduced by the use of HA
in the implant.

angiogenesis26. The development of an

elaborate vascular network is an important
part of the implant wounding healing
process and may be elicited by the initial
ischemia in the immediate wound site
followed by the macrophage mediated
release of bFGF, TNF- and vascular
endothelial growth factor (VEGF)27.

MACROPHAGE AND WOUND HEALING

PROCESS

OSTEOINTEGRATION AND OSTEOBLAST

DIFFERENTIATION

The overall inflammatory kinetics

and their mediators in activating the cells at
the implanted site are not fully understood.
The activation of macrophage is initially
through an innate immune response. This
involves a combination of tumor-necrosis
factor alpha (TNF-) and interferon- (IFN)
to promote a bactericidal phenotype (e.g.,
expression IL-1, IL-6 and IL-23)21. Later,
these cells respond to both innate and
adaptive immune response22 involving
response to basophil and mast cell release of
IL-4
eliciting a
differentiation of
macrophage into a wound healing
pathway23. Adaptive immune response
occurs though TH2 helper cell and IL-10
expression leading to expression from an
intermediate regulatory macrophage of IL4
and IL-13. This cytokine regulated cellular
recruitment, migration, proliferation and
formation of an extracellular matrix on the
implant surface can be influenced by this
early population of macrophages24. These
cells express growth factors such as
fibroblast growth factor (FGF-1, FGF-2,
FGF-4), Transforming growth factors,
epithelial growth factor as well as bone
morphogenetic proteins (BMPs)25. The end
result of this complex cascade is promotion
of a wound healing process that includes

The role of macrophage in implant

topography has primarily focused on
implanted material and potential for
inflammation in the vascular based devices.
One group of scientists believes that the
induction of macrophage apoptosis can
eliminate the inflammation caused due to
these reactions28. At the other hand, human
osteoblast cells were able to differentiate and
proliferate in vitro over HA composites29, 30.
Phagocytosis of wear debris by osteoblasts
affects differentiation and local factor
production in a manner dependent on
particle composition at the implanted site31.
The subsequent formation of a
mineralized matrix during osteogenesis and
bone remodeling or during osteointegration
of HA composites involves the recruitment
of multipotent mesenchymal stem cells and
the progressive differentiation of these cells
into osteoblasts32. Osteoblast differentiation
and skeletal formation during embryonic
development is mediated by an essential
transcription factor protein called core
binding-factor-alpha
(Cbfa1)34.
Cbfa1
belongs to the Runt family of transcription
factors32, and regulates osteoblast differentiation and expression of bone extracellular
matrix protein genes that encode for bone
sialoprotein [BSP], Osteocalcin and Type I

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

Collagen35,36. Cbfa1 plays an essential role

in osteogenesis, osteoblast matrix formation,
chondrocyte differentiation, and bone
resorption by osteoclasts37, and could
therefore be a downstream target of cellular
events such as extracellular matrix adhesionmediated signaling, changes in cell shape
and
responses
to
local
paracrine
environments. A second transcription factor,
osterix, has been described and has been
suggested to play a key role downstream of
Cbfa1 in which its expression is necessary
for the ongoing differentiation within in the
osteogenic pathway38.

stable and interfere with osteoblast cell

proliferation by decreasing in vitro cell
adhesion43, 44.
The physiochemical properties of
HA do not affect the cellular response in
vitro42. In vivo study on the tissue response
for the various crystalline HA has to be
conducted to agree or disagree on the stated
inference. Added to this, the association of
cellular response to HA synthesized and
deposited via various methods along with its
crystalline nature have to be well
investigated.

CELLULAR RESPONSE ON HA

MACROPHAGE AND OSTEOBLAST

RESPONSE TO NANO-HA

The
non-toxic
and
natural
degradation of HA make it an ideal
candidate for in vivo application39. However
the modes of synthesis have been found to
be associated with the degradation in vitro
and in vivo. The HA which was deposited
by ion-beam technique was less degradable
when compared to the HA coated via plasma
spray deposition technique in vitro. It should
be noted that the rapid degradability of the
implanted material will lead to shortening
the longitivity of the implant40. Hence HA
coated via ion-beam technique is more
stable. The in vivo study does not show any
significant difference in degradability but
the adhesiveness of the osteoblast was
reported to be higher in Ion beam deposited
HA coating41. In a comparative study
performed by Nausa et al performed on the
tissue response to two synthetic HA which
differ in their crystallinity (20% and 70%),
there was no significant difference in the
quality and quantity of the inflammatory
cells at the implanted site in vitro42. HA
which are highly crystalline are chemically

HA are now being widely used in

orthopedic implants45,46,47 due to their
biological characteristics such as non-immunogenicity, non-inflammatory
behavior,
greater biocompatibility and high osteoconductivity48. Atomic force microscopy of
trabecular bone showed plate or ball shaped
minerals (30 to 120 nm diameters) which
were densely packed into woven collagen
fibrils49. Ultrastructural examination of
deproteinated bone reveals that individual
2550 nm HA crystals are the essence of
bone in terms of mechanical properties and
bioresorbability, and play an important role
in biomineral formation50. Thus, nanosized
HA particles have aroused intensive interest,
and great efforts have been made in the last
decade to study their synthesis, structure and
properties51,52. Nano-HA has been proven to
exhibit a better biocompatibility, good
bioactivity and flexible structure53,54,55 than
micro-HA.
The surface roughness of the
implant has a direct role in the biological
response at the implanted site18,56-60.

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

Nanoparticles when coated over the implant
increase the surface roughness which
provides greater osteoblast adhesion18,56. The
molecular interactions at the surface can be
targeted to create specific cell level
response57,58,59. An increase in osteoblast
adhesion and differentiation was demonstrated on HA nanoparticles and there was a
significant reduction in its biological

property with the increase in grain size of

the particles18,53-56,60,61. Zhongli Shi et al.
showed the variation in the osteoblast
adhesion over 20nm, 80nm and micro-HA
particle. 20nm HA (Figure 1) shows a
greater cell adhesion than 80 nmHA and
micro-HA56. Similar effects were noticed on
few nanophase ceramics22,23,24.

Figure 1: FESEM images of (a) 20nm, (b) 80nm and (c) micro-HA.
Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

The corresponding images show the

FESEM images of cellular morphology over
HA particles. Cell proliferation was greater
over 20nm sized HA particles56.
The increase in biological activity
over the effect of nanoparticles may be due
to the orientation of protein to the
nanoparticles and specifically the mode of
orientation of adhesion proteins such as
vitronectin to the grain boundaries which in
turn alters osteoblast adhesion and shape;
both critical to formation of bone62,65,66.
Nano-HA can possibly stimulate osteoblastic
proliferation compared with m-HA67. This
may be ascribed to the enhanced interfacial
adhesion of HA nanoparticles to cells, as
well as the improved penetration abilities of
smaller HAs. Due to the smaller size of the
HA particles, they can penetrate into the
cells more easily by endocytosis, clathrincoated vesicles (pits), caveolae or their
independent reporters68 and stimulate growth
factors.
The origin of the effects of
nanoparticles may be derived from the fact
that the internalized HA nanoparticles were
partially dissolved during lysosomal
digestion and the obtained solutes such as
Ca2+ ions diffused into the cytoplasm69. The
proper
Ca2+
concentrations
favored
osteoblast proliferation and differentiation70.
There is a limited knowledge on the
effect of crystallinity and mode of synthesis
of nanoparticles on biological behaviors.
The knowledge on the effect of crystallinity
is more on m-HA than nano-HA71,72. The
improvement in cell adhesive and differentiation properties by the nano-HA have been
explored where lower crystallinity was
found to enhance cell adhesion73. In addition
nano-HA which were spherical in shape
showed an enhanced adhesive property than

rod shaped HA nanoparticles74. The

explanation for the favorable effect of
sphere-like nano-HA on osteoblasts might
be the well-organized surface which seems
beneficial for filopodia protrusion.
In the comparative study by Zhongli
Shi et al.56, on 20nm and 80nm HA particles,
loss of contact with neighboring cells,
contraction of the cells, swollen mitochondria, deformed nuclei and condensed
chromatin was observed over 80nm HA
particles (Figure 1). This proves the
cytotoxic effect of larger size nanoparticles
and the use of smaller size nanoparticles of
HA. Controlling the size of HA
nanoparticles is the major issue that has to
be considered to eliminate this cytotoxic
effect. In addition, nano-HA were found to
be cytotoxic to macrophage and hence there
is a decrease in macrophage proliferation
over nano-HA15.Motskin et al. demonstrated
that HA particle toxicity is due to the
increased cytosplasmic calcium load leading
to cell death. Few nano-HA was found to
enter the nuclei through nuclear pores.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Macrophage and osteoblast response
to micro and nano-HA is quite controversial.
Macrophage is a member of immune system
and its activities are closely related to the
immune response, inflammation and foreign
body response. On the other hand,
osteoblasts
are
mononucleate
cells,
responsible for bone formation. The type of
response by macrophage and osteoblast over
HA depends on the size, crystallanity,
surface roughness of the particles, etc.
Osteoblast adhestion is enhanced when the
macrophage proliferation is less. However,
no study has been carried till now to find the

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

response of osteoblasts and macrophage on
nano-HA simultaneously in vitro as well as
in vivo. The in vitro and in vivo studies of
osteoblast and macrophage response to
micro-HA have proved it to be
biocompatible due to its physiochemical
properties. On incorporation of nano-HA the
osteoblast adhesion was found to be
significantly greater due to increased surface
area and roughness. It should be noted that
the crystallinity of the compound is
inversely proportional to the biocompatibility and mechanical strength. HA
however biocompatible has a less tensile
strength. Hence HA is either coated over a
substrate or HA composite is formed to
enhance the mechanical properties.
It can be concluded that nano-HA
may be a potential agent to enhance the
osteoblast adhesion and decrease the
macrophage activity. Hematopoiesis or
blood cell formation occurs at the bone
marrow. Hence it is necessary to find the
kinetics of blood cells formed by the
incorporation of nano-HA in the implant.
However, the overall study on the response
of osteoblast and macrophage over nanoHA, particle-osteoblast interaction and
particle-macrophage interaction could pave
more way for the future research and better
application of nano-HA in bone implants.
The study on particle-cell interaction could
explain more about the biological stability
derived from the design and surface of HA
particles along with its association at the
particle cell interface in aiding the
attachment of bone forming cells with
minimal inflammatory infiltrate.
REFERENCES
1. E. Dogan, and C. Posaci, Monitoring
hormone replacement therapy by

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

5.

6.

7.

biochemical
markers
of
bone
metabolism in menopausal women,
Postgrad Med J, vol. 78, no. 926, pp.
727-731, (2002).
S. B. Gayathri and
P. Kamaraj,
Catalytic Activity of Nano-Hydroxyapatite on the Production of Gasoline,
Proceedings of International Conference
on Advanced Nanomaterials and
Nanotechnology, D-206, (2009).
S. B. Gayathri and
P. Kamaraj,.
Resistance response models for NanoCalcium Deficient Gas Sensors,
Proceedings of 98th Indian Science
Congress- Chemical Sciences Section,
pp. 155, (2011).
S. Bandyopadhyay-Ghosh, Bone as a
Collagen-hydroxyapatite Composite and
its Repair, Trends Biomater Artif
Organs, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 116-124,
(2008).
G.S. Stein, and J.B. Lian, Molecular
mechanisms mediating proliferation/
differentiation interrelationships during
progressive development of the osteoblast phenotype, Endocrine Review,
Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 424-442, (1993).
A.J. Friedenstein, Precursor cells of
mechanocytes, Int Rev Cytol, Vol. 47,
No.1, pp. 327-359, (1976).
S. Gordon, Pattern recognition
receptors: doubling up for the innate
immune response, Cell, Vol. 111, No.
7, pp. 92730, (2002).
J. E. Park, and A. Barbul, Understanding the role of immune regulation in
wound healing, Am J Surg, Vol. 187,
no. 5, pp. 11S6S, (2004).
P. E. Purdue, P. Koulouvaris, H.G.
Potter, B.J. Nestor, and T.A. Sculco,
The cellular and molecular biology of

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

periprosthetic osteolysis, Clin Orthop

Rel Res, Vol. 454, No. 1, pp. 251-261,
(2007).
8. E. Ngham, and J. Fisher, The role of
macrophages in osteolysis of total joint
replacement, Biomaterials, Vol. 26,
No. 11, pp. 1217-1286, (2005).
9. J. Takebe, C. M. Champagne, S.
Offenbacher, K. Ishibashi and L. F.
Cooper, Titanium surface topography
alters cell shape and modulates bone
morphogenetic protein 2 expression in
the J774A.1 macrophage cell line, J
Biomed Mater Res, Vol. 64A, No. 2, pp.
207-216, (2003).
10. J. Lu, M. Descamps, J. Dejou, G. Koubi,
P. Hardouin, J. Lemaitre and J. P.
Proust, The biodegradation mechanism
of calcium phosphate biomaterials in
bone, J Biomed Mater Res., Vol. 63,
No. 4, pp. 408-412, (2002).
11. R. S. Labow, S. Danne, L.A. Matheson
and J. P. Santerre, Polycarbonateurethane hard segment type influences
esterase substrate specificity for humanmacrophage-mediated biodegradation,
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, Vol. 16, No.
9, pp. 1167-1177, (2005).
12. E. Solheim, B. Sudmann, G. Bang and
E. Sudmann, Biocompatibility and
effect on osteogenesis of poly(ortho
ester) compared to poly(DL-lactic
acid), J Biomed Mater Res, Vol. 49,
No. 2, pp. 257-263, (2000).
13. I. M. Khouw, P. B. van Wachem, L. F.
de Leij and M. J. van Luyn, Inhibition
of the tissue reaction to a biodegradable
biomaterial by monoclonal antibodies to
IFN-gamma, J Biomed Mater Res, Vol.
41, No.2, pp. 202-210, (1998).

14. Z. D. Xia, T. B. Zhu, J. Y. Du, Q. X.

Zheng, L. Wang, S. P. Li, C. Y. Chang
and S. Y. Fang, Macrophages in
degradation of collagen/hydroxylapatite
(CHA),
beta-tricalcium
phosphate
ceramics (TCP) artificial bone graft. An
in vivo study, Chin Med J (Engl), Vol.
107, No. 11, pp. 845-849, (1994).
15. D. Khang, P. Liu-Snyder, R. Pareta, J.
Lu and T. J. Webster, Reduced
responses of macrophages on nanometer
surface features of altered alumina
crystalline phases, Acta Biomater, Vol.
5, No. 5, pp. 1452-1432, (2009).
16. M. Nelson, G. Balasundaram, and T. J
Webster, Increased osteoblast adhesion
on
nanoparticulate
crystalline
hydroxyapatite functionalized with
KRSR, Int J Nanomedicine, Vol. 1, No.
3, pp. 339-349, (2006).
17. G. M. Kontakis, J. E. Pagalos, T. I.
Tosounidis, J. M. Melissas, and P.
Katonis, Bioabsorbable materials in
orthopaedics, Acta Orthop Belg, Vol
73, No. 2, pp. 159-169, (2007).
18. E. Ingham, and J. Fisher, Biological
reactions to wear debris in total joint
replacement Proc Inst Mech Eng H,
Vol. 214, No. 1, pp. 21-37, (2000).
19. D. M. Mosser, and J. P. Edwards,
Exploring the full spectrum of
macrophage activation, Nat Rev
Immunol, Vol. 8, No. 12, pp. 958-969,
(2008).
20. P. Loke, I. Gallagher, M. G. Nair, X.
Zang, F. Brombacher, M. Mohrs, J. P.
Allison, and J. E. Allen, Alternative
activation is an innate response to injury
that requires CD4+ T cells to be
sustained during chronic infection, J

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Immunol, Vol. 179, No. 6, pp. 39263936, (2007).

E. Brandt, G. Woerly, A. B. Younes, S.
Loiseau, and M. Capron, IL-4
production by human polymorphonuclear neutrophils, J Leukoc Biol,
Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 125-130, (2000).
M. Crowther, N. J. Brown, E. T. Bishop,
and C. E. Lewis, Microenvironmental
influence on macrophage regulation of
angiogenesis in wounds and malignant
tumors, J Leukoc Biol, Vol. 70, No. 4,
pp. 478-490, (2001).
T. A. Linkhart, S. Mohan, and D. J.
Baylink, Growth factors for bone
growth and repair: IGF, TGF beta and
BMP, Bone, Vol. 19, No. 1. Pp. 1S12S, (1996).
J.S. Lewis, J. A. Lee, J. C. Underwood,
A. L. Harris, and C. E. Lewis,
Macrophage responses to hypoxia:
Relevance to disease mechanisms, J
Leukoc Biol, Vol. 66, No. 6, pp. 889900, (1999).
T. Okazaki, S. Ebihara, H. Takahashi,
M. Asada, A. Kanda, and H. Sasaki,
Macrophage colonystimulating factor
induces vascular endothelial growth
factor production in skeletal muscle and
promotes tumor angiogenesis J
Immunol, Vol. 174, No. 12, pp. 75317538, (2005).

26. A. Petit, I. Catelas, J. Antoniou, D. J.

Zukor, and O. L. Huk, Differential
apoptotic response of J774 macrophages
to alumina and ultrahigh- molecularweight polyethylene particles, J Orthop
Res, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 9-15, (2002).
27. F. B. Bagambisa, and U. Joos,
Preliminary
studies
on
the
phenomenological
behaviour
of

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

osteoblasts cultured on hydroxyapatite

ceramics, Biomater, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.
50-56, (1990).
C. M. Holden, and G. W. Bernard,
Ultrastructural in vitro characterization
of a porous hydroxyapatite/bone cell
interface, J Oral Implantol, Vol. 16,
No. 2, pp. 86-95, (1990).
C. H. Lohmann, Z. Schwartz, G. Koster,
U. Jahn, G. H. Buchhorn, M. J.
MacDougall, D. Casasola, Y. Liu, V. L.
Sylvia, D. D. Dean, and B. D. Boyan,
Phagocytosis of wear debris by
osteoblasts affects differentiation and
local factor production in a manner
dependent on particle composition,
Biomater, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 551-561,
(2000).
J. E. Aubin, F. Liu, L. Malaval, and A.
K. Gupta, Osteoblast and chondroblast
differentiation, Bone, Vol, 17, No. 2,
pp. 77S-83S, (1995).
P. Ducy, R. Zhang, V. Geoffroy, A. L.
Ridall, and G. Karsenty, Osf2/Cbfa1: A
transcriptional activator of osteoblast
differentiation, Cell, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp.
747-754, (1997).
G. Xiao, D. Wang, M. D. Benson, G.
Karsenty, and R. T. Franceschi, Role of
the alpha2-integrin in osteoblast-specific
gene expression and activation of the
Osf2 transcription factor, J Biol Chem,
Vol. 273, No. 43, pp. 32988-32994,
(1998).

33. H. Harada, S. Tagashira, M. Fujiwara, S.

Ogawa, T. Katsumata, A. Yamaguchi, T.
Komori, and M. Nakatsuka, Cbfa1
isoforms exert functional differences in
osteoblast differentiation, J. Biol.
Chem. Vol. 274, no. 11, pp. 6972-6978,
1999.

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

10

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

34. P. Ducy, M. Starbuck, M. Priemel, J.

Shen, G. Pinero, V. Geoffroy, M.
Amling, and G. A. Karsenty, A Cbfa1dependent genetic pathway controls
bone formation beyond embryonic
development, Genes dev, Vol. 13, No.
8, pp. 1025-1036, (1999).
35. K. Hoshi, T. Komori, and H. Ozawa,
Morphological characterization of
skeletal cells in Cbfa1 deficient mice,
Bone, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 639-651,
(1999).
36. K. Nakashima, X. Zhou, G. Kunkel, Z.
P. Zhang, J. M. Deng, R. R. Behringer,
and B. de Crombrugghe, The novel
zinc finger-containing transcription
factor Osterix is required for osteoblast
differentiation and bone formation,
Cell, Vol. 108, No. 1, pp. 17-29, (2002).
37. J. T. Edwards, J. B. Brunski, and H. W.
Higuchi, Mechanical and morphologic
investigation of the tensile strength of a
bone-hydroxyapatite
interface,
J
Biomed Mater Res, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.
454-468, (1997).
38. J. D. de Bruijn, Calcium phosphate
biomaterials:
bone-bonding
and
biodegradation
properties,
Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Leiden, Leiden,
Netherlands, 1993.
39. Z. S. Luo, F. Z. Cui, Q. L. Feng, H. D.
Li, X. D. Zhu, and M. Spector, In vitro
and in vivo evaluation of degradability
of hydroxyapatite coatings synthesized
by ion beam-assisted deposition, Surf
Coating Tech, Vol. 131, No. 1-3, pp.
192-195, (2000).
40. N. M. de Freitas Costa, B. R. Melo, R.
T. Brito, G. V. de Oliveira Fernandes, V.
G. Bernardo, E. C. Fonseca, M. B. Conz,
G. A. Soares, and J. M. Granjaro,

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Quality and Intensity of the Tissue

Response to Two Synthetic Granular
Hydroxyapatite Implanted in Critical
Defects of Rat Calvaria, Mat Res, Vol.
12, No. 2, pp. 245-251, (2009).
Y. Yang, D. Dennison, and J. L. Ong,
Protein adsorption and osteoblast
precursor cell attachment to hydroxyapatite of different crystallinities, Int J
Oral Maxillofac Implants, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 187-192, (2005).
L. Chou, B. Marek B, and W. R.
Wagner, Effects of hydroxyapatite
coating crystallinity on biosolubility,
cell
attachment
efficiency
and
proliferation in vitro, Biomater, Vol.
20, No. 10, pp. 977-985, (1999).
S. Wojciech, and Y. Masahiro,
Processing
and
properties
of
hydroxyapatite- based biomaterials for
use as hard tissue replacement implants
J Mater Res, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 94-117,
1998.
S. F. Hulbert, J. C. Bokros, L. L. Hench,
J. Wilson, and G. Heimke, Ceramics in
clinical applications, past, present and
future, in High Tech Ceramics, P.
Vincenzini, ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 3-27, (1987).
H. Oonishi, Orthopaedic applications
of hydroxyapatite, Biomater, Vol. 12,
No. 2, pp. 171-178, (1991).

46. J. C. Hornez, F. Chai, F. Monchau, N.

Blanchemain, M. Descamps, and H. F.
Hildebrand, Biological and physicochemical assessment of hydroxyapatite
(HA) with different porosity, Biomol
Eng, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 505-509,
(2007).
47. T. Hassenkam, G. E. Fantner, J. A.
Cutroni, J. C. Weaver, D. E. Morse, P.

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

48.

49.

50.

51.

K. Hansma, High-resolution AFM

imaging of intact and fractured
trabecular bone, Bone, Vol. 35, No. 1.
Pp. 4-10, (2004).
M. J. Olszta, X. Cheng, S. S. Jee, R.
Kumar, Y. Y. Kim, M. J. Kaufman, E. P.
Douglas and L. B. Gower, Bone
structure and formation: a new
perspective, Mater Sci Eng, Vol. 58.
No. 3-5, pp. 77116, (2007).
M. J. Phillips, J. A. Darr, Z. B.
Luklinska, and I. Rehman, Synthesis
and
characterization
of
nanobiomaterials with potential osteological
applications, J Mater Sci Mater Med,
Vol. 14, No. 10, pp. 875-882, (2003).
S. A. Catledge, M. D. Fries, Y. K.
Vohra, W. R. Lacefield, J. E. Lemons, S.
Woodard,
and
R. Venugopalan,
Nanostructured
ceramics
for
biomedical implants, J Nanosci
Nanotechnol, Vol. 2, No. 3-4, pp. 293312, (2002).
J. Huang, Y. W. Lin, X. W. Fu, S. M.
Best, R. A. Brooks, N. Rushton, and W.
Bonfield, Development of nano-sized
hydroxyapatite reinforced composites
for tissue engineering scaffolds, J
Mater Sci Mater Med, vol. 18, no. 11,
pp. 2151-2157, (2007).

52. F. Chen, W. M. Lam, C. J. Lin, G. X.

Qiu, Z. H. Wu, K. D. Luk, and W. W.
Lu, Biocompatibility of electrophoretical deposition of nanostructured
hydroxyapatite coating on roughen
titanium surface: in vitro evaluation
using mesenchymal stem cells, J
Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater,
Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 183-191, (2007).
53. K. U. Lewandrowski, S. P. Bondre, D.
L. Wise, and D. J. Trantolo, Enhanced

11

bioactivity of a poly (propylene

fumarate) bone graft substitute by
augmentation
with
nano-hydroxyapatite, Biomed Mater Eng, vol. 13, no.
2, pp. 115-124, (2003).
54. Z. Shi, X. Huang, Y. Cai, R. Tang, and
D. Yang, Size effect of hydroxyapatite
nanoparticles on proliferation and
apoptosis of osteoblast-like cells, Acta
Biomater, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 338-345,
(2009).
55. L. Meirelles, L. Melin, T. Peltola, P.
Kjellin, I. Kangasniemi, F. Currie, M.
Andersson, T. Albrektsson, and A.
Wennerberg, Effect of hydroxyapatite
and titania nanostructures on early in
vivo bone response, Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 245-254,
(2008).
56. G. Mendonca, D. B. Mendonca, L. G.
Simoes, A. L. Araujo, E. R. Leite, W. R.
Duarte, L. F. Cooper, and F. J. Aragao,
Nanostructured alumina-coated implant
surface: Effect on osteoblast-related
gene expression and bone-to-implant
contact in vivo, Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 205-215,
(2009).
57. G. Mendonca, D. B. Mendonca, L. G.
Simoes, A. L. Araujo, E. R. Leite, W. R.
Duarte, F. J. Aragao, and L. F. Cooper,
The effects of implant surface
nanoscale features on osteoblast-specific
gene expression, Biomater, Vol. 30,
No. 25, pp. 4053-4062, (2009).
58. L. Meirelles, T. Albrektsson, P. Kjellin,
A. Arvidsson, V. Franke-Stenport, M.
Andersson, F. Currie, and A.
Wennerberg, Bone reaction to nano
hydroxyapatite
modified
titanium
implants placed in a gap-healing

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

12

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

model, J Biomed Mater Res A, vol. 87,
no. 3, pp. 624-631, 2008.
M. Sato, A. Aslani, M. A. Sambito, N.
M. Kalkhoran, E. B. Slamovich, and T.
J. Webster, Nanocrystalline hydroxylapatite/ titania coatings on titanium
improves osteoblast adhesion, J
Biomed Mater Res A, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp.
265-272, (2007).
T. J. Webster, and E. S. Ahn,
Nanostructured biomaterials for tissue
engineering bone, Adv Biochem Eng
Biotechnol, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 275308, (2007).
G. Mendonca, D. B. Mendonca, F. J.
Aragao, and L. F. Cooper, Advancing
dental implant surface technology: From
micron-to nanotopography, Biomater,
Vol. 29, No. 28, pp. 3822-3835, (2008).
T. J. Webster, R. W. Siegel, and R.
Bizios, Design and evaluation of
nanophase alumina for orthopaedic/
dental applications, Nanostruct Mater,
Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 983-986, (1999).
G. Balasundaram, C. Yao, and T. J.
Webster, TiO2 nanotubes functionalized with regions of bone morphogenetic protein-2 increases osteoblast
adhesion, J Biomed Mater Res A, Vol.
84, No. 2, pp. 447-453, (2008).

64. G. Balasundaram, and T. J. Webster,

An overview of nano-polymers for
orthopedic applications Macromol
Biosci, Vol. 7, No.5, pp. 635-662,
(2007).
65. X. Guo, J. E. Gough, P. Xiao, J. Liu, and
Z. Shen, Fabrication of nanostructured
hydroxyapatite and analysis of human
osteoblastic cellular response, J Biomed
Mater Res A, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 10221032, 2007.

66. J. P. Richard, K. Melikov, E. Vives, C.

Ramos, B. Verbeure, M. J. Gait, L. V.
Chernomordik and B. Leblue, Cellpenetrating peptides. A reevaluation of
the mechanism of cellular uptake, J
Biol Chem, Vol. 278, No. 1, pp. 585590, (2003).
67. I. W. Bauer, S. P. Li, Y. C. Han, L.
Yuan, and M. Z. Yin, Internalization of
hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in liver
cancer cells, J Mater Sci Mater Med,
Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 1091-1095, (2008).
68. S. Maeno, Y. Niki, H. Matsumoto, H.
Morioka, T. Yatabe, A. Funayama, Y.
Toyama, T. Taguchi and J. Tanaka,
The effect of calcium ion concentration
on osteoblast viability proliferation and
differentiation in monolayer and 3D
culture, Biomater, vol. 26, no. 23, pp.
4847-4855, (2005).
69. M. Nagano, T. Nakamura, T. Kokubo,
M. Tanahashi, and M. Ogawa,
Differences of bone bonding ability and
degradation behaviour in vivo between
amorphous calcium phosphate and
highly
crystalline
hydroxyapatite
coating, Biomater, Vol. 17, No. 18,
1771-1777, (1996).
70. P. Frayssinet, F. Tourenne, N. Rouquet,
P. Conte, C. Delga, and G. Bonel,
Comparative biological properties of
HA plasma-sprayed coatings having
different crystallinities, J Mater Sci
Mater Med, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 11-17,
(1994).
71. G. Balasundaram, M. Sato, and T. J.
Webster,
Using
hydroxyapatite
nanoparticles and decreased crystallinity
to promote osteoblast adhesion similar
to functionalizing with RGD, Biomater,
Vol. 27, No. 14, 2798-2805, (2006).

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)

S. Baby Gayathri, et al., Nano Vision, Vol.1 (1), 1-13 (2011)

72. Y. Zhao, Y. Zhang, F. Ning, D. Guo,
and Z. Xu, Synthesis and cellular
biocompatibility of two kinds of HAP
with different nanocrystal morphology,
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater,
Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 121-126, (2007).
73. X. Feng, J. Ye, Y. Wang, and P. Rao,
Deagglomeration of HA during the

13

precipitation synthesis, J Mater Sci,

Vol. 40, No. 20, pp- 5439-5442, (2005).
74. M. Motskin, D. M. Wright, K. Muller,
N. Kyle, T. G. Gard, A. E. Porter, and J.
N. Skepper, Hydroxyapatite nano and
microparticles: correlation of particle
properties with cytotoxicity and
biostability, Biomater, Vol. 30, No. 19,
pp. 3307-3317, (2009).

Nano Vision, Vol.1, Issue 1, 28 February, 2011, Pages (1-53)