Advertisement

Polymer Bulletin

, Volume 76, Issue 6, pp 2867–2885 | Cite as

The potential use of gentamicin sulfate-loaded poly(l-lactic acid)-sericin hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering

  • Porntipa Pankongadisak
  • Narisara Jaikaew
  • Kitipong Kiti
  • Boontharika Chuenjitkuntaworn
  • Pitt Supaphol
  • Orawan SuwantongEmail author
Original Paper
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Poly(l-lactic acid) (PLLA) scaffolds were prepared by a particulate leaching method using sodium chloride (NaCl) with the size of 300–425 µm as a particulate leaching. The PLLA/NaCl weight ratios were varied to be 1:8, 1:10, 1:12, and 1:15. The gentamicin sulfate (GS)-loaded PLLA-sericin hybrid scaffolds were prepared by immersion of the PLLA scaffolds in sericin solution containing GS at a concentration of 5 mg mL−1 and subsequently freeze-drying. From the results, the pore sizes of the neat and the GS-loaded PLLA-sericin hybrid scaffolds ranged between 290 and 346 µm. The pore interconnectivity of these scaffolds increased with an increase in the amount of NaCl. Both the neat and the GS-loaded PLLA-sericin hybrid scaffolds that had been fabricated at PLLA/NaCl weight ratio of 1:15 showed high interconnected porous structure. Both the water retention and the weight loss increased with increasing NaCl content and submersion time. The increase in the porous structure of the scaffolds with the increasing NaCl content resulted in an observed decrease in the compressive modulus. Moreover, the cumulative released amounts of GS increased with increasing the porous structure of the scaffolds. All the GS-loaded PLLA-sericin hybrid scaffolds showed high activity against the growth of both E. coli TISTR 780 and S. aureus TISTR 1466. Lastly, all the GS-loaded PLLA-sericin hybrid scaffolds were proven non-toxic to MC3T3-E1 cells, indicating their potential uses for bone tissue engineering.

Keywords

PLLA scaffold Sericin Gentamicin sulfate Bone tissue engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from Mae Fah Luang University (MFU). Porntipa Pankongadisak gratefully acknowledges the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. scholarship (PHD/0094/2558), Thailand Research Fund (TRF). Kitipong Kiti also acknowledges the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. scholarship (PHD/0043/2559), Thailand Research Fund (TRF).

References

  1. 1.
    Lew DP, Waldvogel FA (2004) Osteomyelitis. Lancet 364:369–379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16727-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gutierrez K (2005) Bone and joint infections in children. Pediatr Clin N Am 52:779–794.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2005.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waldvogel FA, Medoff G, Swartz MN (1970) Osteomyelitis: a review of clinical features, therapeutic considerations and unusual aspects. N Engl J Med 282:198–206.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197001222820406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spellberg B, Lipsky BA (2012) Systemic antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults. Clin Infect Dis 54:393–407.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kluin OS, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Neut D (2013) Biodegradable vs non-biodegradable antibiotic delivery devices in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 10:341–351.  https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2013.751371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gogia JS, Meehan JP, Di Cesare PE, Jamali AA (2009) Local antibiotic therapy in osteomyelitis. Semin Plast Surg 23:100–107.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1214162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao P, Nie X, Zou M, Shi Y, Cheng G (2011) Recent advances in materials for extended-release antibiotic delivery system. J Antibiot 64:625–634.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ja.2011.58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bose S, Roy M, Bandyopadhyay A (2012) Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 30:546–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP (2012) Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 40:363–408.  https://doi.org/10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v40.i5.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikada Y (2006) Challenges in tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface 3:589–601.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roseti L, Parisi V, Petretta M, Cavallo C, Desando G, Bartolotti I, Grigolo B (2017) Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state of the art and new perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C 78:1246–1262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thavornyutikarn B, Chantarapanich N, Sitthiseripratip K, Thouas GA, Chen Q (2014) Bone tissue engineering scaffolding: computer-aided scaffolding techniques. Prog Biomater 3:61–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-014-0026-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ju YM, Park K, Son JS, Kim J-J, Rhie J-W, Han DK (2008) Beneficial effect of hydrophilized porous polymer scaffolds in tissue-engineered cartilage formation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 85:252–260.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Germain L, Fuentes CA, van Vuure AW, des Rieux A, Dupont-Gillain C (2018) 3D-printed biodegradable gyroid scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Mater Des 151:113–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.04.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang S-D, Ma Q, Wang K, Ma P-B (2018) Strong and biocompatible three-dimensional porous silk fibroin/graphene oxide scaffold prepared by phase separation. Int J Biol Macromol 111:237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aragón J, Salerno S, De Bartolo L, Irusta S, Mendoza G (2018) Polymeric electrospun scaffolds for bone morphogenetic protein 2 delivery in bone tissue engineering. J Colloid Interface Sci 531:126–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.07.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liao C-J, Chen C-F, Chen J-H, Chiang S-F, Lin Y-J, Chang K-Y (2002) Fabrication of porous biodegradable polymer scaffolds using a solvent merging/particulate leaching method. J Biomed Mater Res 59:676–681.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puppi D, Chiellini F, Piras AM, Chiellini E (2010) Polymeric materials for bone and cartilage repair. Prog Polym Sci 35:403–440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu X, Ma PX (2004) Polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 32:477–486.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ABME.0000017544.36001.8e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lou T, Wang X, Song G, Gu Z, Yang Z (2014) Fabrication of PLLA/β-TCP nanocomposite scaffolds with hierarchical porosity for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biochem Macromol 69:464–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arahira T, Maruta M, Matsuya S, Todo M (2015) Development and characterization of a novel porous β-TCP scaffold with a three-dimensional PLLA network structure for use in bone tissue engineering. Mater Lett 152:148–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2015.03.128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feng P, Guo X, Gao C, Gao D, Xiao T, Shuai X, Shuai C, Peng S (2015) Diopside modified porous polyglycolide scaffolds with improved properties. RSC Adv 5:54822–54829.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA06312D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doğan A, Demirci S, Bayir Y, Halici Z, Karakus E, Aydin A, Cadirci E, Albayrak A, Demirci E, Karaman A, Ayan AK, Gundogdu C, Şahin F (2014) Boron containing poly-(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C 44:246–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.08.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lasprilla AJR, Martinez GAR, Lunelli BH, Jardini AL, Filho RM (2012) Poly-lactic acid synthesis for application in biomedical devices—a review. Biotechnol Adv 30:321–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R (2016) Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications—a comprehensive review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:367–392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ostafinska A, Fortelny I, Nevoralova M, Hodan J, Kredatusova J, Slouf M (2015) Synergistic effects in mechanical properties of PLA/PCL blends with optimized composition, processing, and morphology. RSC Adv 5:98971–98982.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra21178f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang Z, Sun C, Wang L, Chen H, He J, Chen Y (2017) Novel poly(l-lactide)/graphene oxide films with improved mechanical flexibility and antibacterial activity. J Colloid Interface Sci 507:344–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2017.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chu CC (1981) Hydrolytic degradation of polyglycolic acid: tensile strength and crystallinity study. J Appl Polym Sci 26:1727–1734.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1981.070260527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsuji H, Ikada Y (2000) Properties and morphology of poly(l-lactide) 4. effects of structural parameters on long-term hydrolysis of poly(l-lactide) in phosphate-buffered solution. Polym Degrad Stab 67:179–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-3910(99)00111-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hsu S-T, Tan H, Yao YL (2014) Effect of laser-induced crystallinity modification on biodegradation profile of poly(l-lactic acid). J Manuf Sci Eng 136:01105.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park A, Cima LG (1996) In vitro cell response to differences in poly-l-lactide crystallinity. J Biomed Mater Res 31:117–130.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.1996.820310102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Loiola LMD, Más BA, Duek EAR, Felisberti MI (2015) Amphiphilic multiblock copolymers of PLLA, PEO and PPO blocks: synthesis, properties and cell affinity. Eur Polym J 68:618–629.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2015.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaseem M, Hamad K, Deri F (2012) Thermoplastic starch blends: a review of recent works. Polym Sci Ser A 54:165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965545X1202006X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Padamwar MN, Pawar AP (2004) Silk sericin and its applications: a review. J Sci Ind Res 63:323–329Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lamboni L, Gauthier M, Yang G, Wang Q (2015) Silk sericin: a versatile material for tissue engineering and drug delivery. Biotechnol Adv 33:1855–1867.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Minoura N, Aiba S-I, Gotoh Y, Tsukada M, Imai Y (1995) Attachment and growth of cultured fibroblast cells on silk protein matrices. J Biomed Mater Res 29:1215–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820291008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aramwit P, Kanokpanont S, Nakpheng T, Srichana T (2010) The effect of sericin from various extraction methods on cell viability and collagen production. Int J Mol Sci 11:2200–2211.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11052200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rocha LKH, Favaro LIL, Rios AC, Silva EC, Silva WF, Stigliani TP, Guilger M, Lima R, Oliveira JM Jr, Aranha N, Tubino M, Vila MMDC, Balcão VM (2017) Sericin from Bombyx mori cocoons. Part I: extraction and physicochemical-biological characterization for biopharmaceutical applications. Process Biochem 16:163–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2017.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mandal BB, Priya AS, Kundu SC (2009) Novel silk sericin/gelatin 3-D scaffolds and 2-D films: fabrication and characterization for potential tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater 5:3007–3020.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.03.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aramwit P, Siritientong T, Kanokpanont S, Srichana T (2010) Formulation and characterization of silk sericin–PVA scaffold crosslinked with genipin. Int J Biol Macromol 47:668–675.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ross S, Yooyod M, Limpeanchob N, Mahasaranon S, Suphrom N, Ross GM (2017) Novel 3D porous semi-IPN hydrogel scaffolds of silk sericin and poly(N-hydroxyethyl acrylamide) for dermal reconstruction. Express Polym Lett 11:719–730.  https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2017.69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rapoport N, Smirnov AI, Pitt GW, Timoshin AA (1999) Bioreduction of tempone and spin-labeled gentamicin by gram-negative bacteria: kinetics and effect of ultrasound. Arch Biochem Biophys 362:233–241.  https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.1998.1020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Balakumar P, Rohilla A, Thangathirupathi A (2010) Gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity: do we have a promising therapeutic approach to blunt it? Pharmacol Res 62:179–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2010.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lan Y, Li WC, Jiao Y, Guo R, Zhang Y, Xue W, Zhang Y (2014) Therapeutic efficacy of antibiotic-loaded gelatin microsphere/silk fibroin scaffolds in infected full-thickness burns. Acta Biomater 10:3167–3176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu X, Yang L, Li J, Zhang Y, Xu W, Ren Y, Liu B, Yang B, Li B (2016) GS/DBM/PLA porous composite biomaterial for the treatment of infective femoral condyle defect in rats. Exp Ther Med 11:2107–2116.  https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Khodaei M, Valanezhad A, Watanabe I (2017) Controlled gentamicin-strontium release as a dual action bone agent: combination of the porous titanium scaffold and biodegradable polymers. J Alloys Compd 720:22–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.05.236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wers E, Oudadesse H, Lefeuvre B, Merdrignac-Conanec O, Barroug A (2015) Evaluation of the kinetic and relaxation time of gentamicin sulfate released from hybrid biomaterial Bioglass-chitosan scaffolds. Appl Surf Sci 353:200–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.06.146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Flores C, Degoutin S, Chai F, Raoul G, Hornez J-C, Martel B, Siepmann J, Ferri J, Blanchemain N (2016) Gentamicin-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microparticles for the prevention of maxillofacial and orthopedic implant infections. Mater Sci Eng C 64:108–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.03.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Frutos P, Diez-Peña E, Frutos G, Barrales-Rienda JM (2002) Release of gentamicin sulphate from a modified commercial bone cement. Effect of (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) comonomer and poly(N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) additive on release mechanism and kinetics. Biomaterials 23:3787–3797.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00028-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aquino RP, Auriemma G, Mencherini T, Russo P, Porta A, Adami R, Liparoti S, Porta GD, Reverchon E, Gaudio PD (2013) Design and production of gentamicin/dextrans microparticles by supercritical assisted atomisation for the treatment of wound bacterial infections. Int J Pharm 440:188–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.07.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Frutos P, Torrado S, Perez-Lorenzo ME, Frutos G (2000) A validated quantitative colorimetric assay for gentamicin. J Pharm Biomed Anal 21:1149–1159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-7085(99)00192-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jana S, Florczyk SJ, Leung M, Zhang M (2012) High-strength pristine porous chitosan scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Mater Chem 22:6291–6299.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C2JM16676C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    O’Brien FJ (2011) Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today 14:88–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70058-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhu Y, Gao C, Liu X, Shen J (2002) Surface modification of polycaprolactone membrane via aminolysis and biomacromolecule immobilization for promoting cytocompatibility of human endothelial cells. Biomacromolecule 3:1312–1319.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm020074y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang J, Wu L, Jing D, Ding JA (2005) A comparative study of porous scaffolds with cubic and spherical macropores. Polymer 46:4979–4985.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2005.02.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ge M, Xue L, Nie T, Ma H, Zhang J (2016) The precision structural regulation of PLLA porous scaffold and its influence on the proliferation and differentiation of MC3T3-E1 cells. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 27:1685–1697.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2016.1229901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Deng Y, Zhang M, Chen X, Pu X, Liao X, Huang Z, Yin G (2017) A novel akermanite/poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) porous composite scaffold fabricated via a solvent casting-particulate leaching method improved by solvent self-proliferating process. Regen Biomater 4:233–242.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rb/rbx014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sin DC, Miao X, Liu G, Wei F, Chadwick G, Yan C, Friis T (2010) Polyurethane (PU) scaffolds prepared by solvent casting/particulate leaching (SCPL) combined with centrifugation. Mater Sci Eng C 30:78–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2009.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Røhl L, Larsen E, Linde F, Odgaard A, Jørgensen J (1991) Tensile and compressive properties of cancellous bone. J Biomech 24:1143–1149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(91)90006-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Venkatesan J, Pallela R, Bhatnagar I, Kim S-K (2012) Chitosan-amylopectin/hydroxyapatite and chitosan-chondroitin sulphate/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macrolec 51:1033–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.08.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chen Y, Zhou S, Li Q (2011) Microstructure design of biodegradable scaffold and its effect on tissue regeneration. Biomaterials 32:5003–5014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.03.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zhang YQ (2002) Applications of natural silk protein sericin in biomaterials. Biotechnol Adv 20:91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-9750(02)00003-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
     Zhao R, Li X, Sun B, Tong Y, Jiang Z, Wang C (2015) Nitrofurazone-loaded electrospun PLLA/sericin based dual-layer fiber mats for wound dressing applications. RSC Adv 5:16940–16949.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ra16208k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ribeiro M, Monteiro FJ, Ferraz MP (2012) Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial–material interactions. Biomatter 2:176–194.  https://doi.org/10.4161/biom.22905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Terada S, Nishimura T, Sasaki M, Yamada H, Miki M (2002) Sericin, a protein derived from silkworms, accelerates the proliferation of several mammalian cell lines including a hybridoma. Cytotechnology 40:3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023993400608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ScienceMae Fah Luang UniversityChiang RaiThailand
  2. 2.Faculty of DentistryMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  3. 3.The Petroleum and Petrochemical College and The Center of Excellence on Petrochemical and Materials TechnologyChulalongkorn UniversityPathumwan, BangkokThailand
  4. 4.Center of Chemical Innovation for Sustainability (CIS)Mae Fah Luang UniversityChiang RaiThailand

Personalised recommendations