journal article·2023-07Open access

Regenerated cellulose sponge as sacrificial template for the synthesis of three-dimensional porous alumina-silica scaffold for tissue engineering

Amanda Maria Claro, Caroline Cássia Alves, Kelvin Sousa dos Santos, Euzane Gomes da Rocha, Marina de Lima Fontes, Gustavo Claro Monteiro, Gustavo Senra Gonçalves de Carvalho, José Maurício Almeida Caiut, Andrei Moroz, Sidney José Lima Ribeiro, Hernane S. Barud

Abstract

Tissue engineering has emerged as a multidisciplinary field that aims to improve health and quality of life by restoring functions of tissues and organs. Cells and scaffolds are the two major components of tissue engineering. Scaffolds act as a support for cells, thus facilitating cell adhesion, proliferation, morphogenesis, differentiation, and extracellular matrix production. Since three-dimensional (3D) porous scaffolds can better simulate the native 3D architecture of in vivo systems than conventional 2D cultures, they are more appropriate to support tissue regeneration. This study aimed to use regenerated cellulose sponge (RCS) as sacrificial template for the synthesis of three-dimensional porous alumina-silica scaffold (ASS). RCS was coated with boehmite-GPTS (3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane) solution and dried at 60 °C for 12 h. The coated RCS was converted into porous alumina-silica scaffold via thermal treatment at 500 °C for 4 h in air. The materials were characterized by Fourier transform‐infrared (FT‐IR), X-Ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) aluminum-27 and silicon-29 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS). The MTT metabolism assays were used to evaluate indirectly cytocompatibility and cell proliferation using MCT3T3-E1, HDFa and HaCaT cells. The biological in vitro assays demonstrated that only RCS exhibited toxicity toward HDFa cells, although this behavior has been shown questionable once other studies have reported the non-cytotoxic, mutagenic and genotoxic potential of RCS. We believe that tests including clonogenic and mutagenic assays should be performed using HDFa cells in contact with RCS-derived extract in order to further investigate this behavior. The sponge materials have demonstrated different growth rate and adhesion to three different cell lines evaluated. Therefore, the employed sacrificial template approach presents as a viable alternative to produce 3D scaffolds for tissue engineering. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

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

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. O’Brien FJ (2011) Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70058-X10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70058-X ↗
2. Rahimnejad M, Boroujeni NN, Jahangiri S, Rabiee N, Rabiee M, Makvandi P, Akhavan O, Varma RS (2021) Prevascularized micro-/nano-sized spheroid/bead aggregates for vascular tissue engineering. Nano-Micro Lett 13:182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40820-021-00697-110.1007/s40820-021-00697-1 ↗
3. Saki M, Narbat MK, Samadikuchaksaraei A, Basir Ghafouri H, Gorjipour F (2009) Biocompatibility study of a hydroxyapatite-alumina and silicon carbide composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Yakhteh Med J 338:b159310.1136/bmj.b1593 ↗
4. Bigham A, Aghajanian AH, Movahedi M, Sattary M, Rafienia M, Tayebi L (2020) A 3D nanostructured calcium-aluminum-silicate scaffold with hierarchical meso-macroporosity for bone tissue regeneration: fabrication, sintering behavior, surface modification and in vitro studies. J Eur Ceram Soc 41:941–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.07.07310.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.07.073 ↗
5. Baino F, Novajra G, Vitale-Brovarone C (2015) Bioceramics and scaffolds: a winning combination for tissue engineering. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.0020210.3389/fbioe.2015.00202 ↗
6. De Araújo Júnior AM, Braido G, Saska S, Barud HS, Franchi LP, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJL (2016) Regenerated cellulose scaffolds: preparation, characterization and toxicological evaluation. Carb Pol 136:892–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.06610.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.066 ↗
7. Pereira HF, Cengiz IF, Silva FS, Reis RL, Oliveira JM (2020) Scaffolds and coatings for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 31:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-020-06364-y10.1007/s10856-020-06364-y ↗
8. Luo X, Zhou G, Liu W, Zhang WJ, Cen L, Cui L, Cao Y (2009) In vitro precultivation alleviates post-implantation inflammation and enhances development of tissue-engineered tubular cartilage. Biomed Mater 4:025006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/4/2/02500610.1088/1748-6041/4/2/025006 ↗
9. Alves CC, Mendonça CR, de Boni L, Caiut JMA (2019) Regenerated cellulose as a porous silica composite template for random laser emission. J Mater Sci: Mater Electron 30:16849–16855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-019-01461-310.1007/s10854-019-01461-3 ↗
10. Gieselmann MJ, Anderson MA (1989) Effect of ionic strength on boehmite hydrogel formation. J Am Ceram Soc 72:980–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1989.tb06255.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.1989.tb06255.x ↗
11. Reed SJB (1996) Electron microprobe analysis and scanning electron microscopy in geology. Cambridge University Press, New York
12. Caiut JMA, Rocha LA, Sigoli FA, Messaddeq Y, Dexpert-Ghys J, Ribeiro SJL (2008) Aluminoxane–epoxi–siloxane hybrids waveguides. J Non-Cryst Solids 354:4795–4799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2008.04.03210.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2008.04.032 ↗
13. De Salvi DTB, Barud HS, Caiut JMA, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJL (2012) Self-supported bacterial cellulose/boehmite organic–inorganic hybrid films. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol 63:211–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-012-2678-x10.1007/s10971-012-2678-x ↗
14. Gong J, Li J, Xu J, Xiang Z, Mo L (2017) Research on cellulose nanocrystals produced from cellulose sources with various polymorphs. RSC Adv 7:33486–33493. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra06222b10.1039/c7ra06222b ↗
15. Peintinger MF, Kratz MJ, Bredow T (2014) Quantum-chemical study of stable, meta-stable and high-pressure alumina polymorphs and aluminium hydroxides. Mater Chem A 2:13143–13158. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ta02663b10.1039/c4ta02663b ↗
16. Sassi Z, Bureau JC, Bakkali A (2002) Spectroscopic study of TMOS-TMSM-MMA gels: previously identication of the networks inside the hybrid material. Vib Spectrosc 28:299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2031(02)00009-710.1016/S0924-2031(02)00009-7 ↗
17. Olejniczak Z, Łeczka M, Cholewa-Kowalska K, Wojtach K, Rokita M, Mozgawa W (2005) 29Si MAS NMR and FTIR study of inorganic–organic hybrid gels. J Mol Struct 744-747:465–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2004.11.06910.1016/j.molstruc.2004.11.069 ↗
18. de Faria LV, Lisboa TP, de Sousa RA, de Carvalho GSG, Matosa MAC, Matos RC (2018) Experimental design for metal extraction from facial cosmetics samples and determination by square wave voltammetry. Anal Methods 10:5327–5334. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ay01696h10.1039/c8ay01696h ↗
19. Luhmer M, d’ Espinose JB, Hommel H, Legrand AP (1996) High-resolution 29Si solid-state NMR study of silicon functionality distribution on the surface of silicas. Magn Reson Imaging 14:911–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0730-725X(96)00180-410.1016/S0730-725X(96)00180-4 ↗
20. Izumiya M, Haniu M, Ueda K, Ishida H, Ma C, Ideta H, Sobajima A, Ueshiba K, Uemura T, Saito N, Haniu H (2021) Evaluation of MC3T3-E1 cell osteogenesis in different cell culture media. Int J Mol Sci 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms2214775210.3390/ijms22147752 ↗
21. Hayakawa T, Yoshida E, Yoshimura Y, Uo M, Yoshinari M (2012) MC3T3-E1 cells on titanium surfaces with nanometer smoothness and fibronectin immobilization. Int J Biomater 2012:743465. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/74346510.1155/2012/743465 ↗
22. Bose S, Darsell J, Hosick H, Yang L, Sarkar D, Bandyopadhyay A (2002) Processing and characterization of porous alumina scaffolds. J Mater Sci 13:23–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101362221607110.1023/A:1013622216071 ↗
23. Ganesh N, Jayakumar R, Koyakutty M, Mony U, Nair SV (2012) Embedded silica nanoparticles in poly(Caprolactone) nanofibrous scaffolds enhanced osteogenic potential for bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng 18:1867–81. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2012.016710.1089/ten.TEA.2012.0167 ↗