Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of mechanical property and bioactivity of nano-bioglass 45S5 scaffold coated with poly-3-hydroxybutyrate

  • Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization
  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the major challenges facing researchers of tissue engineering is scaffold design with desirable physical and mechanical properties for growth and proliferation of cells and tissue formation. In this research, firstly, nano-bioglass powder with grain sizes of 55–56 nm was prepared by melting method of industrial raw materials at 1,400 °C. Then the porous ceramic scaffold of bioglass with 30, 40 and 50 wt% was prepared by using the polyurethane sponge replication method. The scaffolds were coated with poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (P3HB) for 30 s and 1 min in order to increase the scaffold’s mechanical properties. XRD, XRF, SEM, FE-SEM and FT-IR were used for phase and component studies, morphology, particle size and determination of functional groups, respectively. XRD and XRF results showed that the type of the produced bioglass was 45S5. The results of XRD and FT-IR showed that the best temperature to produce bioglass scaffold was 600 °C, in which Na2Ca2Si3O9 crystal is obtained. By coating the scaffolds with P3HB, a composite scaffold with optimal porosity of 80–87 % in 200–600 μm and compression strength of 0.1–0.53 MPa was obtained. According to the results of compressive strength and porosity tests, the best kind of scaffold was produced with 30 wt% of bioglass immersed for 1 min in P3HB. To evaluate the bioactivity of the scaffold, the SBF solution was used. The selected scaffold (30 wt% bioglass/6 wt% P3HB) was maintained for up to 4 weeks in this solution at an incubation temperature of 37 °C. The XRD, SEM EDXA and AAS tests were indicative of hydroxyapatite formation on the surface of bioactive scaffold. This scaffold has some potential to use in bone tissue engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2529–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gomes MA. Bone tissue engineering strategy based on starch scaffolds and bone marrow cells cultured in a flow perfusion bioreactor. PhD thesis. 2004;1:25–34.

  3. Lanza R, Langer R, Vacanti J. Principle of tissue engineering. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jeffrey O, Thomas A, Bruce A, Charles S. Bone tissue engineering. 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sehrooten J, Helsen JA. Adhesion of bioactive glass coating to Ti6Al4V oral implant. Biomaterials. 2000;21:46–191.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jones DA. Principles and prevention of corrosion. Singapore: MacMillan Publishing Company; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hajiali H, Karbasi S, Hosseinalipour M, Rezaie H. Effects of bioglass nanoparticles on bioactivity and mechanical property of poly(3hydroxybutirate) scaffolds. Scientia Iranica. 2013;20:2306–13.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schüth F, Sing KSW, Weitkamp J. Handbook of porous solids: gelcasting foams for porous ceramics. Columbus: American Ceramic Society Bulletin; 2002. p. 2423–970.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Akaraonye E, Keshavarz T, Roy I, Chem J. Production of polyhydroxyalkanoates. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2010;85:732–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Misra SK, et al. poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) multifunctional composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials. 2010;31:2806–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Li W, Laurencin C, Caterson E, Tuan R, Ko F. Electrospun nanofibrous structure: a novel scaffold for tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;60:613–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Knowles JC, Hastings GW. Development of a degradable composite for orthopaedic use. Biomaterials. 1992;13:491–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bretcanu O, et al. Biodegradable polymer coated 45S5 Bioglass-derived glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Eur J Glass Sci Technol. 2007;48:227–34.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Foroughi M, Karbasi S, Ebrahimi-Kahrizsangi R. Physical and mechanical properties of a poly-3-hydroxybutyrate coated nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. J Porous Mater. 2012;19:667–75.

  15. Saadat A, Behnamghader AA, Karbasi S, Abedi D, Soleimani M, Shafiee A. Comparison of acellular and cellular bioactivity of poly 3-hydroxybutyrate/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite and poly 3-hydroxybutyrate scaffolds. J Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng. 2013;18:587–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramay H, Zhang M. Preparation of porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds by combination of the gel-casting and polymer sponge methods. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen QZ, Thompson ID, Boccaccini AR. 45S5 bioglass-derived glass ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2414–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hodgskinson R, Currey JD. Effect of variation in structure on Young’s modulus of cancellous bone. J Eng Med. 1986;204:115–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hing KA, Best SM, Bonfield W. Characterization of poroushydroxyapatite. J Mater Sci. 1999;10:135–45.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials. 2006;27:2907–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hench LL. The story of bioglass. J Mater Sci. 2006;17:967–78.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Monshi A, Foroughi MR, Monshi MR. Modified Scherrer equation to estimate more accurately nano-crystallite size using XRD. World J Nano Sci Eng. 2012;2:154–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boskey A, Camacho N. FT-IR imaging of native and tissue engineered bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2006;28:2465–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zin-Kook K, Jeong-Jung O, Hisamichi K. Achitecture of porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds using polymer foam process. J Biomech Sci Eng. 2009;4:377–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy CM, Brien MG. The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment proliferation and migration in collagen glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31:461–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Callcut S, Knowles JC. Correlation between structure and compressive strength in a reticulate glass-reinforced hydroxyapatite foam. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2002;13:485–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen QZ, Boccaccini AR. Poly(dl-lactide) coated 45S5 bioglass-based scaffolds: processing and characterisation. J Biomed Mater Res. 2006;77:445–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Landi E, Tampieri A, Celotti G, Sprio S. Densification behaviour and mechanisms of synthetic hydroxyapatites. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2000;20:2377–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeed Karbasi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montazeri, M., Karbasi, S., Foroughi, M.R. et al. Evaluation of mechanical property and bioactivity of nano-bioglass 45S5 scaffold coated with poly-3-hydroxybutyrate. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 26, 62 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5369-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5369-z

Keywords

Navigation