Cytotoxicity of Ti-6Al-4V-5Cu Alloy to MC3T3-E1 Cells

doi:10.1007/s40195-020-01158-1

Abstract

Abstract:

The aim of this work was to study the cytotoxicity of Ti-6Al-4V-5Cu (TC4-Cu) alloy for dental applications and evaluate the cell viability of different fabricated TC4-Cu alloys in contact with MC3T3-E1 cells in vitro. Ti-6Al-4V (TC4) alloy was used as a negative control to evaluate the cytotoxicity level of TC4-Cu alloy so as to provide basic support for the dental clinical application. Control group TC4 and experimental group TC4-Cu with different fabrications were incubated in the cell culture medium. The absorbance value of mouse osteoblast MC3T3-E1 cells was detected by CCK-8 assay after 1, 3 and 7 days, respectively. The relative proliferation rate of cells was calculated, and then the toxicity level was valued for each group. Cell morphology on the surface was also studied by observing the cytoskeleton through F-actin filament staining. The experimental results showed that the absorbance values for the experimental and the negative control groups were not same at different time points. Compared with different fabricated TC4-Cu alloys, the annealing-TC4-Cu alloy showed much better biocompatibility. The mouse osteoblast MC3T3-E1 cells cultured with annealing-TC4-Cu, rolling-TC4-Cu and solution + aging-TC4-Cu have no toxic effects, and these alloys could promote the proliferation of mouse osteoblasts.

Key words: Cytotoxicity, Ti-6Al-4V-5Cu alloy, Fabrication, Biocompatibility

Ji Zhang, Ling Ren, Ke Yang. Cytotoxicity of Ti-6Al-4V-5Cu Alloy to MC3T3-E1 Cells[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2021, 34(5): 694-700.

Figures/Tables 6

References 20

[1]	W.S.W. Harun, N.S. Manam, M.S.I.N. Kamariah, S. Sharif, A.H. Zulkifly, I. Ahmad, H. Miura, Powder Technol. 331, 74 (2018) DOI URL
[2]	S. Zhao, S.J. Li, W.T. Hou, Y.L. Hao, R. Yang, L.E. Murr, Mater. Technol. 31, 98 (2016)
[3]	S.B. Patel, A. Hamlekhan, D. Royhman, A. Butt, J. Yuan, T. Shokuhfar, C. Sukotjo, M.T. Mathew, G. Jursich, C.G. Takoudis, J. Mater. Chem. B 2, 3597 (2014)
[4]	K.X. Gu, J.J. Wang, Y. Zhou, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 30, 131 (2014) DOI URL
[5]	A. Kumar, K.C. Nune, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 104, 2751 (2016) DOI URL
[6]	E. Uhlmann, L. Schweitzer, H. Kieburg, A. Spielvogel, K. Huth-Herms, Procedia CIRP 68, 184 (2018) DOI URL
[7]	R. Smeets, A. Henningsen, O. Jung, M. Heiland, C. Hammacher, J.M. Stein, Head Face Med. 10, 34 (2014) DOI PMID
[8]	N. Mirhosseini, P.L. Crouse, M.J.J. Schmidth, L. Li, D. Garrod, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253, 7738 (2007) DOI URL
[9]	J.W. Wang, S.Y. Zhang, Z.Q. Sun, H. Wang, L. Ren, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35, 2336 (2019) DOI URL
[10]	C. Peng, S.Y. Zhang, Z.Q. Sun, L. Ren, K. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng., C 93, 495 (2018) DOI URL
[11]	R. Liu, Y.L. Tang, L.L. Zeng, Y. Zhao, Z. Ma, Z.Q. Sun, L.B. Xiang, L. Ren, K. Yang, Dent. Mater. 34, 1112 (2018) DOI URL
[12]	Z. Ma, L. Ren, M.B. Shahzad, R. Liu, Y. Zhao, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34, 1867 (2018) DOI URL
[13]	J. Zhao, L. Ren, B.C. Zhang, Z.Q. Cao, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 33, 1604 (2017) DOI URL
[14]	Q. Wang, L. Ren, X.P. Li, S.Y. Zhang, T.B. Sercombe, K. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng., C 68, 519 (2016) DOI URL
[15]	J.H. Wu, K.K. Chen, C.Y. Chao, Y.H. Chang, J.K. Du, Mater. Sci. Eng., C 108, 110433 (2020) DOI URL
[16]	Z.M. Zhang, G.T. Zheng, H.X. Li, L. Yang, X.Y. Wang, G.W. Qin, E.L. Zhang, Mater. Sci. Eng., C 94, 376 (2019) DOI URL
[17]	E.L. Zhang, X.Y. Wang, M. Chen, B. Hou, Mater. Sci. Eng., C 69, 1210 (2016) DOI URL
[18]	E.L. Zhang, F.B. Li, H.Y. Wang, J. Liu, C.M. Wang, M.Q. Li, K. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng., C 33, 4280 (2013) DOI URL
[19]	Z. Ma, L. Ren, R. Liu, Y. Ke, Y. Zhang, Z.H. Liao, W.Q. Liu, M. Qi, R.D.K. Misra, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 31, 723 (2015) DOI URL
[20]	C. Peng, Y. Liu, H. Liu, S.Y. Zhang, C.G. Bai, Y.Z. Wan, L. Ren, Y. Ke, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35, 2121 (2019) DOI URL

Sample		Abbreviation	Fabricated process	Microstructure
Control group	Ti-6Al-4V	Annealing-TC4	700 °C/annealing/1 h/AC	α + β
Experimental group	Ti-6Al-4V-5Cu	Annealing-TC4-Cu	740 °C/annealing/1 h/AC	α + β
		Aging-TC4-Cu	480 °C/aging/2 h	α + β + Ti₂Cu
		Rolling-TC4-Cu	800 °C/rolling	α + β
		Solution + aging-TC4-Cu	840 °C/solution/1 h/FC +480 °C/aging/2 h	α + β + Ti₂Cu

Sample		Abbreviation	Fabricated process	Microstructure
Control group	Ti-6Al-4V	Annealing-TC4	700 °C/annealing/1 h/AC	α + β
Experimental group	Ti-6Al-4V-5Cu	Annealing-TC4-Cu	740 °C/annealing/1 h/AC	α + β
		Aging-TC4-Cu	480 °C/aging/2 h	α + β + Ti₂Cu
		Rolling-TC4-Cu	800 °C/rolling	α + β
		Solution + aging-TC4-Cu	840 °C/solution/1 h/FC +480 °C/aging/2 h	α + β + Ti₂Cu

Relative growth rate (RGR) (%)	Toxicity grade	Evaluation results
≥ 100	0	Qualified
75-99	1	Qualified
50-74	2	Re-review
25-49	3	Failed
1-24	4	Failed
0	5	Failed

Relative growth rate (RGR) (%)	Toxicity grade	Evaluation results
≥ 100	0	Qualified
75-99	1	Qualified
50-74	2	Re-review
25-49	3	Failed
1-24	4	Failed
0	5	Failed

Specimens		Annealing-TC4	Annealing-TC4-Cu	Aging-TC4-Cu	Rolling-TC4-Cu	Solution + aging-TC4-Cu
OD value	1 day	0.669 ± 0.006	0.828 ± 0.025	0.485 ± 0.006	0.685 ± 0.030	0.601 ± 0.009
	3 days	1.486 ± 0.017	2.080 ± 0.037	1.453 ± 0.031	1.415 ± 0.019	1.499 ± 0.023
	7 days	1.956 ± 0.011	2.096 ± 0.058	1.850 ± 0.071	1.890 ± 0.042	1.916 ± 0.006
RGR (%)	1 day	100.0 ± 1.0	123.6 ± 3.1	72.6 ± 1.3	102.4 ± 4.5	89.8 ± 1.6
	3 days	100.0 ± 1.2	139.9 ± 1.8	97.8 ± 2.2	95.2 ± 1.4	100.8 ± 1.6
	7 days	100.0 ± 0.6	107.2 ± 2.8	94.6 ± 3.9	96.6 ± 2.2	98.0 ± 0.4
Cytotoxicity	1 day	-	0 Grade/non-cytotoxic	2 Grade/mild cytotoxic	0 Grade/non-cytotoxic	1 Grade/non-cytotoxic
	3 days	-	0 Grade/non-cytotoxic	1 Grade/non-cytotoxic	1 Grade/non-cytotoxic	0 Grade/non-cytotoxic
	7 days	-	0 Grade/non-cytotoxic	1 Grade/non-cytotoxic	1 Grade/non-cytotoxic	1 Grade/non-cytotoxic