10.1007/s40204-023-00217-x

Chitosan scaffolds with mesoporous hydroxyapatite and mesoporous bioactive glass

HTML PDF
  • Ana Sofia Pádua1,
  • Lígia Figueiredo2,
  • Jorge Carvalho Silva3,
  • João Paulo Borges*1,
  1. I3N/CENIMAT, Materials Science Department, NOVA School of Science and Technology, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, PT
  2. Bioceramed S.A., Rua José Gomes Ferreira 1, Arm D, Loures, 2660-360, PT
  3. I3N/CENIMAT, Physics Department, NOVA School of Science and Technology, New University of Lisbon, Caparica, PT
Cover Image

Published 2023-02-09

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Pádua, A. S., Figueiredo, L., Silva, J. C., & Borges, J. P. (2023). Chitosan scaffolds with mesoporous hydroxyapatite and mesoporous bioactive glass. Progress in Biomaterials, 12(2 (June 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-023-00217-x
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 1

PDF views: 11

Abstract

Abstract Bone regeneration is one of the most well-known fields in tissue regeneration. The major focus concerns polymeric/ceramic composite scaffolds. In this work, several composite scaffolds based on chitosan (CH), with low and high molecular weights, and different concentrations of ceramics like mesoporous bioactive glass (MBG), mesoporous hydroxyapatite (MHAp) and both MBG and MHAp (MC) were produced by lyophilization. The purpose is to identify the best combination regarding optimal morphology and properties. The tests of the scaffolds present a highly porous structure with interconnected pores. The compression modulus increases with ceramic concentration in the scaffolds. Furthermore, the 75%MBG (835 ± 160 kPa) and 50%MC (1070 ± 205 kPa) samples are the ones that mostly enhance increases in mechanical properties. The swelling capacity increases with MBG and MC, respectively, to 700% and 900% and decreases to 400% when MHAp concentration increases. All scaffolds are non-cytotoxic at 12.5 mg/mL. The CHL scaffolds improve cell adhesion and proliferation compared to CHH, and the MC scaffold samples, show better results than those produced with just MBG or MHAp. The composite scaffolds of chitosan with MBG and MHAp, have revealed to be the best combination due to their enhanced performance in bone tissue engineering.

Keywords

  • Mesoporous hydroxyapatite,
  • Mesoporous bioactive glass,
  • Chitosan,
  • Scaffold,
  • Bone tissue engineering
HTML PDF

References

  1. Abbasi et al. (2020) Porous scaffolds for bone regeneration (pp. 1-9) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsamd.2020.01.007
  2. Ahmadipour et al. (2022) A review: silicate ceramic-polymer composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering (pp. 180-195) https://doi.org/10.1080/00914037.2020.1817018
  3. Arcos et al. (2011) Mesoporous bioactive glasses: mechanical reinforcement by means of a biomimetic process (pp. 2952-2959) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.02.012
  4. Atkinson et al. (2021) Preparation and biocompatibility of poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA)-mesoporous bioactive glass (MBG) composite scaffolds https://doi.org/10.3390/gels7040180
  5. Baino et al. (2017) Composite biomaterials based on sol-gel mesoporous silicate glasses: a review https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering4010015
  6. Bhatt and Rozental (2012) Bone graft substitutes (pp. 457-468) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2012.08.001
  7. Cai et al. (2018) MBG scaffolds containing chitosan microspheres for binary delivery of IL-8 and BMP-2 for bone regeneration (pp. 4453-4465) https://doi.org/10.1039/c8tb00875b
  8. Carmo FLA do (2018) Study on production methods of Bioglass Porous Structures for Bone Tissue Engineering. FCT
  9. Chen et al. (2015) Preparation of chitosan/nano hydroxyapatite organic–inorganic hybrid microspheres for bone repair (pp. 401-407) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.06.072
  10. Correia et al. (2011) Chitosan scaffolds containing hyaluronic acid for cartilage tissue engineering (pp. 717-730) https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2010.0467
  11. Davies et al. (1969) The dependence of lysozyme activity on pH and ionic strength (pp. 294-305) https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2744(69)90397-0
  12. De Long et al. (2007) Bone grafts and bone graft substitutes in orthopaedic trauma surgery. A critical analysis (pp. 649-658) https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00465
  13. de Melo and Habibovic (2018) Biomineralization-inspired material design for bone regeneration https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201800700
  14. Deville et al. (2006) Freeze casting of hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (pp. 5480-5489) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.06.028
  15. Dorj et al. (2012) Robocasting chitosan/nanobioactive glass dual-pore structured scaffolds for bone engineering (pp. 119-122) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2011.12.107
  16. Dorozhkin (2010) Calcium orthophosphate bioceramics (pp. 247-258) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.08.004
  17. Dorozhkin (2013) Self-setting calcium orthophosphate formulations (pp. 209-311) https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb4040209
  18. Ebrahimi and Sipaut (2021) The effect of liquid phase concentration on the setting time and compressive strength of hydroxyapatite/bioglass composite cement https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11102576
  19. Erol and Boccaccini (2011) Nanoscaled bioactive glass particles and nanofibres https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84569-768-6.50006-5
  20. Fathi and Hanifi (2007) Evaluation and characterization of nanostructure hydroxyapatite powder prepared by simple sol-gel method (pp. 3978-3983) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2007.01.028
  21. Franco et al. (2012) Electrospun hydroxyapatite fibers from a simple sol-gel system (pp. 233-236) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2011.09.090
  22. Freier et al. (2005) Controlling cell adhesion and degradation of chitosan films by N-acetylation (pp. 5872-5878) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.033
  23. Gaihre and Jayasuriya (2018) Comparative investigation of porous nano-hydroxyapaptite/chitosan, nano-zirconia/chitosan and novel nano-calcium zirconate/chitosan composite scaffolds for their potential applications in bone regeneration (pp. 330-339) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.060
  24. García-Gareta et al. (2015) Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration (pp. 112-121) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.07.007
  25. Gentile et al. (2012) Bioactive glass/polymer composite scaffolds mimicking bone tissue (pp. 2654-2667) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34205
  26. Giannoudis et al. (2005) Bone substitutes: an update (pp. S20-S27) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.029
  27. Grenier et al. (2019) Mechanisms of pore formation in hydrogel scaffolds textured by freeze-drying (pp. 195-203) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.070
  28. Habibovic and de Groot (2007) Osteoinductive biomaterials—properties and relevance in bone repair (pp. 25-32) https://doi.org/10.1002/term.5
  29. Habibovic et al. (2008) Comparative in vivo study of six hydroxyapatite-based bone graft substitutes (pp. 1363-1370) https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20648
  30. Han et al. (2012) Methods of N-acetylated chitosan scaffolds and its in vitro biodegradation by lysozyme (pp. 15-23) https://doi.org/10.4236/jbise.2012.51003
  31. Jain et al. (2013) A new horizon in modifications of chitosan: syntheses and applications (pp. 91-181) https://doi.org/10.1615/CritRevTherDrugCarrierSyst.2013005678
  32. Jampafuang et al. (2019) Impact of crystalline structural differences between α- and β-chitosan on their nanoparticle formation via ionic gelation and superoxide radical scavenging activities https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11122010
  33. João et al. (2016) A simple sol-gel route to the construction of hydroxyapatite inverted colloidal crystals for bone tissue engineering (pp. 407-410) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2016.09.030
  34. João et al. (2017) Chitosan inverted colloidal crystal scaffolds: influence of molecular weight on structural stability (pp. 50-53) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2017.01.096
  35. Jones (2005) Scaffolds for tissue engineering https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845690861.4.201
  36. Kaing et al. (2011) Assessment of bone grafts placed within an oral and maxillofacial training programme for implant rehabilitation (pp. 406-411) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01369.x
  37. Kandelousi et al. (2019) The effect of bioactive glass nanoparticles on polycaprolactone/chitosan scaffold: melting enthalpy and cell viability (pp. 97-111) https://doi.org/10.1177/0883911518819109
  38. Kang and Chang (2018) Channels in a porous scaffold: a new player for vascularization (pp. 705-715) https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2018-0022
  39. Kang et al. (1999) Fabrication of porous gelatin scaffolds for tissue engineering (pp. 1339-1344) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00036-8
  40. Karageorgiou and Kaplan (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis (pp. 5474-5491) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002
  41. Khan et al. (2007) In situ synthesized ceramic-polymer composites for bone tissue engineering: bioactivity and degradation studies (pp. 4183-4190) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0636-0
  42. Kokubo and Takadama (2006) How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? (pp. 2907-2915) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.017
  43. Kurien et al. (2013) Bone graft substitutes currently available in orthopaedic practice: the evidence for their use (pp. 583-597) https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30286
  44. Li et al. (2010) Preparation and characterization of homogeneous hydroxyapatite/chitosan composite scaffolds via in-situ hydration (pp. 42-49) https://doi.org/10.4236/jbnb.2010.11006
  45. Loh and Choong (2013) Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size (pp. 485-502) https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0437
  46. Lončarević et al. (2017) Lysozyme-induced degradation of chitosan: the characterisation of degraded chitosan scaffolds (pp. 12-22) https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2640-6403.jtrr-17-1840
  47. Lončarević et al. (2017) Lysozyme-induced degradation of chitosan: the characterisation of degraded chitosan scaffolds https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2640-6403.jtrr-17-1840
  48. Luna et al. (2011) Cell adhesion and proliferation onto chitosan-based membranes treated by plasma surface modification (pp. 101-116) https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328210362924
  49. Ma and Choi (2001) Biodegradable polymer scaffolds with well-defined interconnected spherical pore network (pp. 23-33) https://doi.org/10.1089/107632701300003269
  50. Madihally and Matthew (1999) Porous chitosan scaffolds for tissue engineering (pp. 1133-1142) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00011-3
  51. Molaei et al. (2015) Modification of electrophoretic deposition of chitosan–bioactive glass–hydroxyapatite nanocomposite coatings for orthopedic applications by changing voltage and deposition time (pp. 14537-14544) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.07.170
  52. Munir et al. (2018) Hollow mesoporous hydroxyapatite nanostructures; smart nanocarriers with high drug loading and controlled releasing features (pp. 112-120) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.04.029
  53. Peter et al. (2009) Development of novel α-chitin/nanobioactive glass ceramic composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications (pp. 926-931) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.07.016
  54. Peter et al. (2010) Nanocomposite scaffolds of bioactive glass ceramic nanoparticles disseminated chitosan matrix for tissue engineering applications (pp. 284-289) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.08.001
  55. Peter et al. (2010) Novel biodegradable chitosan–gelatin/nano-bioactive glass ceramic composite scaffolds for alveolar bone tissue engineering (pp. 353-361) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.02.003
  56. Pighinelli and Kucharska (2014) Properties and structure of microcrystalline chitosan and hydroxyapatite composites (pp. 128-138) https://doi.org/10.4236/jbnb.2014.52015
  57. Qiao et al. (2017) Biomimetic hollow mesoporous hydroxyapatite microsphere with controlled morphology, entrapment efficiency and degradability for cancer therapy (pp. 44788-44798) https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra09204k
  58. Queiroz et al. (2015) Does the use of chitosan contribute to oxalate kidney stone formation? (pp. 141-158) https://doi.org/10.3390/md13010141
  59. Ren et al. (2005) The enzymatic degradation and swelling properties of chitosan matrices with different degrees of N-acetylation (pp. 2403-2410) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2005.07.022
  60. Richter et al. (2022) Composites consisting of calcium phosphate cements and mesoporous bioactive glasses as a 3D plottable drug delivery system https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2022.01.034
  61. Rodríguez-Vázquez et al. (2015) Chitosan and its potential use as a scaffold for tissue engineering in regenerative medicine (pp. 121-143) https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/821279
  62. Salgado et al. (2004) Bone tissue engineering: state of the art and future trends (pp. 743-765) https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200400026
  63. Sashiwa et al. (1990) Lysozyme susceptibility of partially deacetylated chitin (pp. 295-296) https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-8130(90)90016-4
  64. Sikavitsas et al. (2001) Biomaterials and bone mechanotransduction (pp. 2581-2593) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00002-3
  65. Song et al. (2014) Preparation of chitosan-based hemostatic sponges by supercritical fluid technology (pp. 2459-2473) https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7042459
  66. Stan et al. (2011) Highly adherent bioactive glass thin films synthetized by magnetron sputtering at low temperature (pp. 2693-2710) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-011-4441-1
  67. Tamplenizza et al. (2015) In vivo imaging study of angiogenesis in a channelized porous scaffold 10(2310/7290)
  68. Thein-Han and Misra (2008) Biomimetic chitosan–nanohydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (pp. 147-155) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.01.022
  69. Turnbull et al. (2018) 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (pp. 278-314) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.10.001
  70. Wagoner Johnson and Herschler (2011) A review of the mechanical behavior of CaP and CaP/polymer composites for applications in bone replacement and repair (pp. 16-30) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.07.012
  71. Webber et al. (2015) A perspective on the clinical translation of scaffolds for tissue engineering (pp. 641-656) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-014-1104-7
  72. Wegst et al. (2015) Bioinspired structural materials (pp. 23-36) https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4089
  73. Wubneh et al. (2018) Current state of fabrication technologies and materials for bone tissue engineering (pp. 1-30) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.031
  74. Yan et al. (2005) Mesoporous bioactive glasses. I. Synthesis and structural characterization (pp. 3209-3217) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2005.08.024
  75. Yu et al. (2021) Ursolic acid loaded-mesoporous hydroxylapatite/ chitosan therapeutic scaffolds regulate bone regeneration ability by promoting the m2-type polarization of macrophages (pp. 5301-5315) https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S323033
  76. Zhang et al. (2012) Novel mesoporous hydroxyapatite/chitosan composite for bone repair (pp. 243-251) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(11)60117-0
  77. Zhou et al. (2018) Synthesis of mesoporous hydroxyapatite via a vitamin C templating hydrothermal route (pp. 52-55) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.01.154