journal article·2004-05

Comparison of environmental scanning electron microscopy with high vacuum scanning electron microscopy as applied to the assessment of cell morphology

Karen J. McKinlay, Francis J. Allison, Colin A. Scotchford, David M. Grant, James M. Oliver, John R. King, John V. Wood, Paul D. Brown

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract The efficacy of conventional high vacuum scanning electron microscopy (SEM), environmental SEM (ESEM), and confocal laser scanning microscopy techniques in the assessment of cell–material interactions is compared. Specific attention is given to the application of these techniques in the assessment of the early morphological response of human osteoblast‐like cells cultured on titanium dioxide. The processing of cells cultured for conventional high vacuum SEM leads to the loss of morphological features that are retained when using ESEM. The use of cytoskeletal labeling, viewed with confocal laser scanning microscopy, in conjunction with ESEM gives an indication of the changes to cell morphology as a consequence of incubation time in response to interactions at the biological/material interface. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 69A: 359–366, 2004
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Electron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1520/STP1272-EB10.1520/STP1272-EB ↗
2. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00146-410.1016/S0142-9612(97)00146-4 ↗
3. 10.1016/S1359-0286(99)00047-910.1016/S1359-0286(99)00047-9 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00144-010.1016/S0142-9612(97)00144-0 ↗
5. 10.1016/S1359-0286(01)00005-510.1016/S1359-0286(01)00005-5 ↗
6. 10.1016/B978-012582460-6/50002-510.1016/B978-012582460-6/50002-5 ↗
7. 10.1016/S1359-0286(01)00007-910.1016/S1359-0286(01)00007-9 ↗
8. 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00242-210.1016/S0142-9612(99)00242-2 ↗
10. Topographical control of cell behavior 2. Multiple grooved substrata10.1242/dev.108.4.635 ↗
11. 10.1016/S1389-0344(02)00028-X10.1016/S1389-0344(02)00028-X ↗
12. 10.1002/jbm.1018510.1002/jbm.10185 ↗
13. 10.22203/eCM.v001a0710.22203/eCM.v001a07 ↗
14. 10.1016/0167-7012(95)00085-210.1016/0167-7012(95)00085-2 ↗
15. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1994.tb01101.x10.1111/j.1365-2672.1994.tb01101.x ↗
16. 10.1007/BF0157605810.1007/BF01576058 ↗
17. 10.1002/jemt.107025050810.1002/jemt.1070250508 ↗
18. Bozzola JJ · 1998
19. Hayat M · 2000
20. Goodhew PJ · 2001
21. Slayter EM · 1992
22. 10.1002/jemt.107025052610.1002/jemt.1070250526 ↗
23. 10.1002/jemt.107025050310.1002/jemt.1070250503 ↗
24. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1991.tb03149.x10.1111/j.1365-2818.1991.tb03149.x ↗
25. Environmental SEM and X‐ray microanalysis of biological materials
26. Environmental scanning electron microscopy
27. Paddock SE · 1999
28. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1985.tb02577.x10.1111/j.1365-2818.1985.tb02577.x ↗
29. 10.1002/jemt.107026060310.1002/jemt.1070260603 ↗
30. 10.3109/1052029830906681110.3109/10520298309066811 ↗
31. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81280-510.1016/S0092-8674(00)81280-5 ↗
32. Bray D · 2001
33. 10.1038/3509906610.1038/35099066 ↗