Table 1 Studies of bone cell behavior on surfaces covered with TiO2 nanowires/nanofibers.
Author | Method | Substrate | Morphology | Nanowire/nanofiber diameter | Cell line | Cell proliferation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fanton et al. (this study) | Anodization | Ti-35Nb-7Zr-5Ta | Nanowires | 28 nm | MC3T3-E1 | Lower than that on the flat TNZT and TNT surfaces |
Chen et al.18 | Electrospinning | Pure Ti | Nanofibers | 130, 200, and 320 nm | MG-63 | Higher (by ~ 20%) on the nanofibers of 200 nm in diameter than that on flat Ti after 6 days in culture. Similar for the other diameters |
Wang et al.19 | Electrospinning | No substrate | Nanofiber meshes | 184 and 343 nm | MG-63 | Lower than that on a polystyrene plate. No difference between the nanofibers with the two different diameters |
Dinan et al.20 | Thermal oxidation | Ti-6Al-4 V | Nanowires (predominantly) and nanoribbons | ~ 500 nm | Human osteosarcoma | Higher (by ~ 40%) than that on the flat Ti-6Al-4 V alloy after 15 h of culture |
Huang et al.21 | Atomic layer deposition of TiO2 to cover Si nanofibers | Ti-6Al-4 V | Nanofibers with a bird’s nest morphology | 60 nm | MC3T3-E1 | Lower than that of for Si, SiO2 nanofibers, and flat Ti-6Al-4 V |
Chang et al.22 | Rotating anodization | Pure Ti | Nanowires | Not measured | MG-63 | Higher (by ~ 100%) than that on flat Ti after 21 days of culture |
