Development of nanoparticle doped hydroxyapatite-based composite scaffolds for maxillofacial reconstruction
Source abstract
Abstract
Hydroxyapatite is widely used as a biomaterial filler to promote maxillofacial bone regeneration. Bacterial infections pose a common challenge to maxillofacial bone tissue regeneration; thus, incorporating antibacterial properties into hydroxyapatite-based scaffolds is essential. This study aimed to develop composite scaffolds for maxillofacial reconstruction by incorporating silver and iron nanoparticles into hydroxyapatite-polymer composites. A thermally induced phase separation method was employed to fabricate scaffolds with hydroxyapatite, collagen, and chitosan. Various characterization techniques, including porosity and density measurements, swelling ability analysis, biodegradability, FTIR, XRD, and SEM analysis, were utilized. The incorporation of silver and iron nanoparticles enhanced antibacterial properties and promoted bone growth. The scaffolds demonstrated efficacy against bacteria in antimicrobial assays. Cytotoxicity and blood biocompatibility analysis confirmed their compatibility with cells, and in vivo studies in a rabbit mandibular defect model demonstrated successful bone restoration. These findings may have significant implications for craniofacial tissue regeneration, particularly in non-load-bearing bone defects.Graphical abstract
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Facial Trauma and Fracture Management · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. N. Salari et al., J. Stomatol. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.05.00810.1016/j.jormas.2021.05.008 ↗
2. M. Glick et al., BMC Global Public Health (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-023-00019-010.1186/s44263-023-00019-0 ↗
3. D.S. Thalakiriyawa, W.L. Dissanayaka, Int. Dent. J. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2023.07.00810.1016/j.identj.2023.07.008 ↗
4. C. Montoya et al., Bone Res. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41413-020-00131-z10.1038/s41413-020-00131-z ↗
5. E.A. Rayment, D.J. Williams, Stem Cells (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.41610.1002/stem.416 ↗
6. W. Tan et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. C (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2020.11159210.1016/j.msec.2020.111592 ↗
7. M.P. Ferraz, Materials (Basel) 16(11), 4117 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1611411710.3390/ma16114117 ↗
8. A. Szwed-Georgiou et al., ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c0060910.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00609 ↗
9. F. Kadi et al., J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 35, 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-024-06779-x10.1007/s10856-024-06779-x ↗
10. M.M. Rana et al., J. Polym. Eng. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1515/polyeng-2022-020510.1515/polyeng-2022-0205 ↗
11. X. Mo et al., Int. J. Mol. Sci. 9, 1291 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms2402129110.3390/ijms24021291 ↗
12. L. Suamte et al., Smart Mater. Manuf. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smmf.2022.10001110.1016/j.smmf.2022.100011 ↗
13. N.I.M. Fadilah et al., Polymers (Basel) (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1403047610.3390/polym14030476 ↗
14. R.A. Pérez et al., Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.03.00910.1016/j.addr.2012.03.009 ↗
15. C.J. Cheng et al., Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd450310.1038/nrd4503 ↗
16. M. Krishani et al., Gels (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/gels902010010.3390/gels9020100 ↗
17. A. Frei et al., Nat. Rev. Chem. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-023-00463-410.1038/s41570-023-00463-4 ↗
18. T. Bruna et al., Int. J. Mol. Sci. (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms2213720210.3390/ijms22137202 ↗
19. S.H. Haji et al., Sci. Rep. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19698-010.1038/s41598-022-19698-0 ↗
20. M.S. Rahman et al., Prog. Biomater. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-019-0113-x10.1007/s40204-019-0113-x ↗
21. S. Habelitz, Y. Bai, J. Dent. Res. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034521101292510.1177/00220345211012925 ↗
22. M.H. Hong et al., Biomater Res. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-022-00288-010.1186/s40824-022-00288-0 ↗
23. N.I.M. Fadilah et al., Polymers (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1511243610.3390/polym15112436 ↗
24. S. Fatullayeva et al., J. Polym. Res. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-022-03121-310.1007/s10965-022-03121-3 ↗
25. J.A. Rincón-López et al., Materials (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1103033310.3390/ma11030333 ↗
26. Y. Zhao et al., Pharmaceuticals (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ph1508102310.3390/ph15081023 ↗
27. G.A. Rico-Llanos et al., Polymers (Basel) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1304059910.3390/polym13040599 ↗
28. M.M. Islam et al., Bioact Mater. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.01.01210.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.01.012 ↗
29. S.I. Roohani-Esfahani et al., Sci. Rep. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep1946810.1038/srep19468 ↗
30. M. Pilia et al., Biomed. Res. Int. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/45825310.1155/2013/458253 ↗
31. M.P. Nikolova, M.S. Chavali, Bioact Mater. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.10.00510.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.10.005 ↗
32. M. Cossio-Bolanos et al., Peer J. (2022). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1309210.7717/peerj.13092 ↗
33. P. Zioupos et al., J. Biomech. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.03.02510.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.03.025 ↗
34. Z. Chen et al., J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2016.116947810.1080/09205063.2016.1169478 ↗
35. L. Soltani et al., Sci. Rep. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50664-610.1038/s41598-023-50664-6 ↗
36. K. Lai et al., RSC Adv. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RA22376G10.1039/C2RA22376G ↗
37. M.H. Mujahid et al., Biomed. Pharmacother. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.11379110.1016/j.biopha.2022.113791 ↗
38. A. Kaushal et al., Chem. Biol. Interact. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2023.11059010.1016/j.cbi.2023.110590 ↗
39. C. You et al., Sci. Rep. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10481-010.1038/s41598-017-10481-0 ↗
40. W. Chu et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromol. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.12531010.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125310 ↗
41. H. Wang et al., J. Mater. Res. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2015.24310.1557/jmr.2015.243 ↗
42. A.A. El-Rashidy et al., Biomed. Mater. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/aad8cf10.1088/1748-605X/aad8cf ↗
43. S.K. Wong et al., J. Funct. Biomater. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb1405028610.3390/jfb14050286 ↗
44. Z. Li et al., Materials (Basel) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1604142910.3390/ma16041429 ↗
45. A. Roffi et al., Int. J. Mol. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms2009222710.3390/ijms20092227 ↗