journal article·2016-06-07

The improved biological response of shark tooth bioapatites in a comparative in vitro study with synthetic and bovine bone grafts

M López-Álvarez, S Pérez-Davila, C Rodríguez-Valencia, P González, J Serra

Biomedical Materials· Volume 11· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

Autologous bone is considered to be the gold standard for bone tissue regeneration, providing more highly efficient functional responses compared to synthetic materials, and avoiding the rejection risks of allogenic grafts. However, it presents limitations for certain types of surgery due to its high resorption levels and donor site morbidity. Different biphasic synthetic composites, based onnon-apatitic calcium phosphates enriched with apatitic phases-such as hydroxyapatite, and bioderived bone grafts of bovine and porcine origin-are proposed as lower resorption materials due to their higher crystalline structure. The present work proposes two new sources of bioapatites for bone filler applications obtained from the dentine and enameloid of shark teeth, respectively. These bioapatites each present a characteristic apatite-based composition and additional enrichments of specific trace elements, such as magnesium and fluorine, with proven roles in bone metabolism. Their processing and physicochemical characterization (SEM, FT-Raman and XRD) is presented, together with an in vitro evaluation of osteogenic activity compared to a commercial bovine mineralized matrix and synthetic HA/β TCP grafts. The results proved the globular morphology (0.5-1.5 μm) and porosity (~50 μm and ~0.5-1 μm) of shark dentine bioapatites with biphasic composition: apatitic (hydroxyapatite and apatite-(CaF)), non-apatitic (whitlockite), and an apatitic phase (fluorapatite), organized in oriented crystals in enameloid bioapatites. An evaluation of the pre-osteoblast MC3T3-E1 morphology revealed the colonization of pores in dentine bioapatites and an aligned cell growth in the oriented enameloid crystals. A higher proliferation (p < 0.01) was detected at up to 21 d in both the shark bioapatites and synthetic biphasic graft with respect to the bovine mineralized matrix. Finally, the great potential of porous biphasic dentine bioapatites enriched with Mg and the aligned fluorapatite crystals of enameloid bioapatites in promoting greater osteogenic activity was confirmed with a significantly increased ALP synthesis (p < 0.01) compared to the commercial grafts.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental materials and restorations

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

References (41)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01920.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01920.x ↗
2. 10.1007/s00223-007-9034-010.1007/s00223-007-9034-0 ↗
3. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02015.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02015.x ↗
4. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2007.08.01510.1016/j.apsusc.2007.08.015 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.msec.2011.11.02110.1016/j.msec.2011.11.021 ↗
6. Coello B · Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express · 2015 · 110.1088/2057-1976/1/4/045204 ↗
7. 10.1007/s00223990073310.1007/s002239900733 ↗
8. 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2006.00175.x10.1111/j.1600-0757.2006.00175.x ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.03.01210.1016/j.jsb.2012.03.012 ↗
10. 10.1002/biot.20110029410.1002/biot.201100294 ↗
11. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(1999)48:3&lt;224::AID-JBM5&gt;3.0.CO;2-A10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(1999)48:3&lt;224::AID-JBM5&gt;3.0.CO;2-A ↗
12. Hughes J M · Am. Mineral. · 1991 · 76 · 1165
13. 10.2138/am.2008.268310.2138/am.2008.2683 ↗
14. 10.1080/0038701980800743910.1080/00387019808007439 ↗
15. 10.1038/sj.dmfr.460060110.1038/sj.dmfr.4600601 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.00210.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 ↗
17. Kim J · Biomed. Mater. · 2014 · 9
18. 10.1002/jbm.a.3455310.1002/jbm.a.34553 ↗
19. 10.1177/00220345900690S11310.1177/00220345900690S113 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.actamat.2003.09.04610.1016/j.actamat.2003.09.046 ↗
21. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02100.x ↗
22. 10.1007/s10856-008-3658-010.1007/s10856-008-3658-0 ↗
23. 10.1002/jbm.b.3170010.1002/jbm.b.31700 ↗
24. López-Álvarez M · Juncus maritimus Biomed. Mater. · 2011 · 610.1088/1748-6041/6/4/045012 ↗
25. 10.1186/scrt50510.1186/scrt505 ↗
26. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02334.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02334.x ↗
27. 10.1007/s00784-014-1388-x10.1007/s00784-014-1388-x ↗
28. Miron R J · Clin. Oral Implants Res. · 2015
29. 10.1159/00008674910.1159/000086749 ↗
30. 10.3390/ma305294710.3390/ma3052947 ↗
31. Piatelli M · Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants · 1999 · 14 · 835
32. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120511.x10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120511.x ↗
33. Ratner B D ed Ratner B D · Biomaterials Science: an Introduction to Materials in Medicine · 2004 · 10
34. 10.1093/ndt/gft40010.1093/ndt/gft400 ↗
35. 10.1111/clr.1239610.1111/clr.12396 ↗
36. 10.1002/jbm.a.3454010.1002/jbm.a.34540 ↗
37. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02571.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02571.x ↗
38. 10.1016/j.jsb.2007.10.00610.1016/j.jsb.2007.10.006 ↗
39. 10.1002/jmor.1090310.1002/jmor.10903 ↗
40. 10.1111/clr.1239510.1111/clr.12395 ↗
41. 10.1364/OL.32.00298710.1364/OL.32.002987 ↗