In vitro assessment of motility and proliferation of human osteogenic cells on different isolated extracellular matrix components compared with enamel matrix derivative by continuous single-cell observation.
OBJECTIVE
The composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM) plays a substantial role in bone remodelling, fracture healing and osseointegration of dental implants by regulating proliferation, migration and finally differentiation of osteogenic cell populations. Emdogain, a composition of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD), has been introduced as a potential candidate to promote tissue regeneration. We investigated whether EMD could serve as a potential promoter of cell proliferation and motility as a dynamic cell response and compared the results with the ubiquitous single ECM components type I collagen and laminin.


METHODS
In the investigation presented, we used a continuous observation method for the analysis of migratory and proliferative patterns of individual cells. We analyzed the response of four osteoblastic cell lines to specific extracellular ligands (type I collagen, laminin and EMD) over a period of 24 h compared with untreated glass surface and bovine serum albumin (BSA) as control groups.


RESULTS
Type I collagen and laminin promoted cell motility significantly compared with the control groups and, in part, compared with EMD as well. The analysis of all 451 investigated cells revealed the following mean values for cell motiliy: untreated glass (n=99): 5.46+/-2.74 microm/h, BSA (n=89): 6.35+/-2.43 microm/h, type I collagen (n=108): 8.77+/-3.42 microm/h, laminin (n=74): 9.89+/-5.10 microm/h and EMD (n=81): 7.92+/-3.35 microm/h. Proliferation rates on the different surfaces were heterogenous for all investigated cell lines and varied from 0% to 50% within 24 h without a correlation to cell motility.


CONCLUSIONS
In our study, EMD promotes cell motility better than the control groups. The two investigated single ECM components type I collagen and laminin promoted cell motility superior to EMD. This supports the hypothesis that EMD promotes a less mobile but more differentiated osteogenic phenotype.
Klein
Marcus Oliver
MO
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany. klein@mkg.klinik.uni-mainz.de
Reichert
Christoph
C
Koch
Dorothee
D
Horn
Sigrid
S
Al-Nawas
Bilal
B
D002454:Cell Differentiation / Q000187:drug effects; D002460:Cell Line; D002465:Cell Movement / Q000187:drug effects; D049109:Cell Proliferation / Q000187:drug effects; D002478:Cells, Cultured; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible / Q000494:pharmacology; D024042:Collagen Type I / Q000494:pharmacology; D003746:Dental Enamel Proteins / Q000494:pharmacology*; D016326:Extracellular Matrix Proteins / Q000494:pharmacology*; D005898:Glass; D006801:Humans; D007797:Laminin / Q000494:pharmacology; D010006:Osteoblasts / Q000187:drug effects*; D010012:Osteogenesis / Q000187:drug effects*; D012038:Regeneration / Q000187:drug effects; D012710:Serum Albumin, Bovine / Q000494:pharmacology; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors
D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D024042:Collagen Type I; D003746:Dental Enamel Proteins; D016326:Extracellular Matrix Proteins; D007797:Laminin; C109069:enamel matrix proteins; D012710:Serum Albumin, Bovine