A new insight into in vitro behaviour of poly(ε-caprolactone)/bioactive glass composites in biologically related fluids
Source abstract
Abstract
In the present work, the role of content, size and chemical composition of gel-derived bioactive glass particles from the SiO2–CaO–P2O5 system in modulating the in vitro bioactivity, osteoinductive properties and long-term (up to 15 months) degradation behaviour of poly(ε-caprolactone)-based composite films was investigated. Bioactivity was assessed in simulated body fluid (SBF) and HEPES-free Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% foetal bovine serum (FBS), while hydrolytic degradation tests were performed in phosphate buffer saline. Obtained composite films showed excellent calcium phosphate (CaP) layer forming ability in both SBF and DMEM-10% FBS. However, kinetics of bioactivity process strongly depended on the type of medium used. The layer of amino acids and proteins, derived from cell culture medium, on the surfaces of composites created barrier that inhibited release of the ions on the one hand, while increasing nucleation density of calcium phosphates, affecting the morphology of formed CaP layers on the other. The presence of bioactive glass fillers was shown to impart osteoinductive properties to obtained films, supporting osteoblast attachment and proliferation, as well as stimulating cell differentiation and also matrix mineralization process in vitro. We showed that kinetics of bioactivity process and also osteoinductive properties of composite films could be easily modulated with the use of different contents and chemical compositions of fillers. The results showed that modification of PCL matrix with bioactive glass particles accelerated its degradation. We proved that the degradation rate of composites could be controlled and optimized for bone regeneration, in particular by using bioactive fillers causing different calcium phosphate layer forming ability on the surfaces of composites, depending on particle size and chemical composition. We have presented new opportunities to design and obtain multifunctional composites with tunable degradation and bioactivity kinetics, as well as biological properties that can meet complex requirements of bone tissue engineering.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties · Dental materials and restorations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Larrañaga A, Aldazabal P, Martin FJ, Sarasua JR (2014) Hydrolytic degradation and bioactivity of lactide and caprolactone based sponge-like scaffolds loaded with bioactive glass particles. Polym Degrad Stab 110:121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.08.02110.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.08.021 ↗
2. Lam CXF, Hutmacher DW, Schantz J-T et al (2009) Evaluation of polycaprolactone scaffold degradation for 6 months in vitro and in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 90A:906–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.3205210.1002/jbm.a.32052 ↗
3. Bottino MC, Thomas V, Schmidt G et al (2012) Recent advances in the development of GTR/GBR membranes for periodontal regeneration—a materials perspective. Dent Mater 28:703–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.02210.1016/j.dental.2012.04.022 ↗
4. Hoornaert A, d’Arros C, Heymann M-F, Layrolle P (2016) Biocompatibility, resorption and biofunctionality of a new synthetic biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration. Biomed Mater 11:45012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/11/4/04501210.1088/1748-6041/11/4/045012 ↗
5. Can E, Udenir G, Kanneci AI et al (2011) Investigation of PLLA/PCL blends and paclitaxel release profiles. AAPS PharmSciTech 12:1442–1453. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-011-9714-y10.1208/s12249-011-9714-y ↗
6. Chouzouri G, Xanthos M (2007) In vitro bioactivity and degradation of polycaprolactone composites containing silicate fillers. Acta Biomater 3:745–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.01.00510.1016/j.actbio.2007.01.005 ↗
7. Lei B, Shin K-H, Noh D-Y et al (2013) Sol–gel derived nanoscale bioactive glass (NBG) particles reinforced poly(ε-caprolactone) composites for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C 33:1102–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2012.11.03910.1016/j.msec.2012.11.039 ↗
8. Lam CXF, Savalani MM, Teoh S-H, Hutmacher DW (2008) Dynamics of in vitro polymer degradation of polycaprolactone-based scaffolds: accelerated versus simulated physiological conditions. Biomed Mater 3:34108. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/3/3/03410810.1088/1748-6041/3/3/034108 ↗
9. Rich J, Jaakkola T, Tirri T et al (2002) In vitro evaluation of poly(ε-caprolactone-co-DL-lactide)/bioactive glass composites. Biomaterials 23:2143–2150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00345-310.1016/S0142-9612(01)00345-3 ↗
10. Díaz E, Sandonis I, Valle MB et al (2014) In vitro degradation of poly(caprolactone)/nHA composites. J Nanomater 2014:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/80243510.1155/2014/802435 ↗
11. Chouzouri G, Xanthos M (2007) Degradation of aliphatic polyesters in the presence of inorganic fillers. J Plast Film Sheeting 23:19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/875608790707659910.1177/8756087907076599 ↗
12. Łączka M, Cholewa-Kowalska K, Osyczka AM (2016) Bioactivity and osteoinductivity of glasses and glassceramics and their material determinants. Ceram Int 42:14313–14325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.07710.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.077 ↗
13. Hench LL (2009) Genetic design of bioactive glass. J Eur Ceram Soc 29:1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2008.08.00210.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2008.08.002 ↗
14. Mami M, Lucas-Girot A, Oudadesse H et al (2008) Investigation of the surface reactivity of a sol–gel derived glass in the ternary system SiO2–CaO–P2O5. Appl Surf Sci 254:7386–7393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2008.05.34010.1016/j.apsusc.2008.05.340 ↗
15. Lee JTY, Leng Y, Chow KL et al (2011) Cell culture medium as an alternative to conventional simulated body fluid. Acta Biomater 7:2615–2622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.02.03410.1016/j.actbio.2011.02.034 ↗
16. Bohner M, Lemaitre J (2009) Can bioactivity be tested in vitro with SBF solution? Biomaterials 30:2175–2179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.00810.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.008 ↗
17. Rohanová D, Boccaccini AR, Horkavcová D et al (2014) Is non-buffered DMEM solution a suitable medium for in vitro bioactivity tests? J Mater Chem B 2:5068–5076. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TB00187G10.1039/C4TB00187G ↗
18. Łączka M, Cholewa K, Łączka-Osyczka A (1997) Gel-derived powders of CaO–P2O5–SiO2 system as a starting material to production of bioactive ceramics. J Alloys Compd 248:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8388(96)02648-510.1016/S0925-8388(96)02648-5 ↗
19. Dziadek M, Menaszek E, Zagrajczuk B et al (2015) New generation poly(e-caprolactone)/gel-derived bioactive glass composites for bone tissue engineering: part I. Material properties. Mater Sci Eng C 56:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.06.02010.1016/j.msec.2015.06.020 ↗
20. Kokubo T, Takadama H (2006) How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials 27:2907–2915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.01710.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.017 ↗
21. Li W, Nooeaid P, Roether JA et al (2014) Preparation and characterization of vancomycin releasing PHBV coated 45S5 Bioglass®-based glass–ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Eur Ceram Soc 34:505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.08.03210.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.08.032 ↗
22. Caridade SG, Merino EG, Alves NM et al (2013) Chitosan membranes containing micro or nano-size bioactive glass particles: evolution of biomineralization followed by in situ dynamic mechanical analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 20:173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.11.01210.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.11.012 ↗
23. Poh PSP, Hutmacher DW, Stevens MM, Woodruff MA (2013) Fabrication and in vitro characterization of bioactive glass composite scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biofabrication 5:45005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/5/4/04500510.1088/1758-5082/5/4/045005 ↗
24. Misra SK, Ansari T, Mohn D et al (2010) Effect of nanoparticulate bioactive glass particles on bioactivity and cytocompatibility of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) composites. J R Soc Interface 7:453–465. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2009.025510.1098/rsif.2009.0255 ↗
25. Dziadek M, Zagrajczuk B, Menaszek E et al (2017) Poly(ε-caprolactone)-based membranes with tunable physicochemical, bioactive and osteoinductive properties. J Mater Sci 52:12960–12980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1424-810.1007/s10853-017-1424-8 ↗
26. Dziadek M, Zagrajczuk B, Ziabka M et al (2016) The role of solvent type, size and chemical composition of bioactive glass particles in modulating material properties of poly(ε-caprolactone) based composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 90:90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.07.00110.1016/j.compositesa.2016.07.001 ↗
27. Yoshioka T, Kamada F, Kawazoe N et al (2010) Structural changes and biodegradation of PLLA, PCL, and PLGA sponges during in vitro incubation. Polym Eng Sci 50:1895–1903. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.2171410.1002/pen.21714 ↗
28. Natu MV, de Sousa HC, Gil MH (2013) Influence of polymer processing technique on long term degradation of poly(ε-caprolactone) constructs. Polym Degrad Stab 98:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.10.03010.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.10.030 ↗
29. Peña J, Corrales T, Izquierdo-Barba I, et al (2006) Long term degradation of poly(ε-caprolactone) films in biologically related fluids. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.10.01610.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.10.016 ↗
30. Bosworth LA, Downes S (2010) Physicochemical characterisation of degrading polycaprolactone scaffolds. Polym Degrad Stab 95:2269–2276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.09.00710.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.09.007 ↗
31. Prabhakar RL, Brocchini S, Knowles JC (2005) Effect of glass composition on the degradation properties and ion release characteristics of phosphate glass—polycaprolactone composites. Biomaterials 26:2209–2218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.07.01610.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.07.016 ↗
32. Kizuki T, Ohgaki M, Katsura M et al (2003) Effect of bone-like layer growth from culture medium on adherence of osteoblast-like cells. Biomaterials 24:941–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00430-110.1016/S0142-9612(02)00430-1 ↗
33. Lu HH, Pollack SR, Ducheyne P (2001) 45S5 Bioactive glass surface charge variations and the formation of a surface calcium phosphate layer in a solution containing fibronectin. J Biomed Mater Res 54:454–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(20010305)54:3<454:AID-JBM200>3.0.CO;2-H10.1002/1097-4636(20010305)54:3<454::AID-JBM200>3.0.CO;2-H ↗
34. Juhasz JA, Best SM, Auffret AD, Bonfield W (2008) Biological control of apatite growth in simulated body fluid and human blood serum. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:1823–1829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3344-710.1007/s10856-007-3344-7 ↗
35. Wang K, Zhou C, Hong Y, Zhang X (2012) A review of protein adsorption on bioceramics. Interface Focus 2:259–277. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2012.001210.1098/rsfs.2012.0012 ↗
36. Salinas AJ, Vallet-Regí M (2013) Bioactive ceramics: from bone grafts to tissue engineering. RSC Adv 3:11116–11131. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ra00166k10.1039/c3ra00166k ↗
37. Iijima K, Sakai A, Komori A et al (2015) Control of biomimetic hydroxyapatite deposition on polymer substrates using different protein adsorption abilities. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 130:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.04.01010.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.04.010 ↗
38. Tavafoghi M, Brodusch N, Gauvin R, Cerruti M (2016) Hydroxyapatite formation on graphene oxide modified with amino acids: arginine versus glutamic acid. J R Soc Interface 13(114):2015098610.1098/rsif.2015.0986 ↗
39. El-Kady AM, Saad EA, El-Hady BMA, Farag MM (2010) Synthesis of silicate glass/poly(l-lactide) composite scaffolds by freeze-extraction technique: characterization and in vitro bioactivity evaluation. Ceram Int 36:995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2009.11.01210.1016/j.ceramint.2009.11.012 ↗
40. Fabbri P, Cannillo V, Sola A et al (2010) Highly porous polycaprolactone-45S5 Bioglass® scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Compos Sci Technol 70:1869–1878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.05.02910.1016/j.compscitech.2010.05.029 ↗
41. Pamula E, Kokoszka J, Cholewa-Kowalska K et al (2011) Degradation, bioactivity, and osteogenic potential of composites made of PLGA and two different sol–gel bioactive glasses. Ann Biomed Eng 39:2114–2129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-011-0307-410.1007/s10439-011-0307-4 ↗
42. Dziadek M, Pawlik J, Menaszek E et al (2015) Effect of the preparation methods on architecture, crystallinity, hydrolytic degradation, bioactivity, and biocompatibility of PCL/bioglass composite scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 103:1580–1593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.3335010.1002/jbm.b.33350 ↗
43. Zagrajczuk B, Dziadek M, Olejniczak Z et al (2017) Structural and chemical investigation of the gel-derived bioactive materials from the SiO2–CaO and SiO2–CaO–P2O5 systems. Ceram Int 43:12742–12754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2017.06.16010.1016/j.ceramint.2017.06.160 ↗
44. Kim H-W, Lee H-H, Chun G-S (2008) Bioactivity and osteoblast responses of novel biomedical nanocomposites of bioactive glass nanofiber filled poly(lactic acid). J Biomed Mater Res Part A 85A:651–663. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.3133910.1002/jbm.a.31339 ↗
45. Li W, Ding Y, Yu S et al (2015) Multifunctional chitosan-45S5 bioactive glass-poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) microsphere composite membranes for guided tissue/bone regeneration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:20845–20854. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b0612810.1021/acsami.5b06128 ↗
46. Yao J, Radin S, Reilly G et al (2005) Solution mediated effect of bioactive glass in poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)- bioactive glass composites on osteogenesis of marrow stromal cells. Key Eng Mater 284–286:619–622. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.284-286.61910.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.284-286.619 ↗
47. Bosetti M, Zanardi L, Hench L, Cannas M (2003) Type I collagen production by osteoblast-like cells cultured in contact with different bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res 64A:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.1041510.1002/jbm.a.10415 ↗
48. Silver IA, Deas J, Erecińska M (2001) Interactions of bioactive glasses with osteoblasts in vitro: effects of 45S5 Bioglass®, and 58S and 77S bioactive glasses on metabolism, intracellular ion concentrations and cell viability. Biomaterials 22:175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00173-310.1016/S0142-9612(00)00173-3 ↗
49. Gentleman MM, Gentleman E (2014) The role of surface free energy in osteoblast–biomaterial interactions. Int Mater Rev 59:417–429. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743280414Y.000000003810.1179/1743280414Y.0000000038 ↗
50. Maquet V, Boccaccini AR, Pravata L et al (2004) Porous poly(α-hydroxyacid)/Bioglass® composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. I: preparation and in vitro characterisation. Biomaterials 25:4185–4194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.08210.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.082 ↗
51. Mohammadi MS, Ahmed I, Muja N et al (2012) Effect of Si and Fe doping on calcium phosphate glass fibre reinforced polycaprolactone bone analogous composites. Acta Biomater 8:1616–1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.12.03010.1016/j.actbio.2011.12.030 ↗
52. Tamjid E, Bagheri R, Vossoughi M, Simchi A (2011) Effect of particle size on the in vitro bioactivity, hydrophilicity and mechanical properties of bioactive glass-reinforced polycaprolactone composites. Mater Sci Eng C 31:1526–1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2011.06.01310.1016/j.msec.2011.06.013 ↗
53. Jaakkola T, Rich J, Tirri T et al (2004) In vitro Ca-P precipitation on biodegradable thermoplastic composite of poly(ε-caprolactone-co-dl-lactide) and bioactive glass (S53P4). Biomaterials 25:575–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00558-110.1016/S0142-9612(03)00558-1 ↗