Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 52, Issue 15, pp 9023–9038 | Cite as

Bioactive glass containing silicone composites for left ventricular assist device drivelines: role of Bioglass 45S5® particle size on mechanical properties and cytocompatibility

  • Nicholas H. Cohrs
  • Konstantin Schulz-Schönhagen
  • Florian Jenny
  • Dirk Mohn
  • Wendelin J. Stark
In Honor of Larry Hench

Abstract

Aside its historical use in contact with bone and teeth, an increasing number of studies use bioactive glasses (BG) in contact with soft tissue. BG could provide solutions for various medical problems. This study presents a first evaluation, whether BG containing silicone elastomers are a suitable material for left ventricular assist device drivelines and could enhance skin biointegration thereof. Three different nano- or microparticles of BG45S5® were incorporated into medical grade silicone elastomer, and thin films of the composites were manufactured. Physicochemical, mechanical and in vitro experiments using primary human dermal fibroblasts were used to evaluate the nano- and microcomposites. The incorporation of BG particles reduced the tensile strength at break and percent elongation at break of the composites and increased the stiffness of the material. Especially, the incorporation of nanosized BG decreased the percent elongation at break after immersion in SBF due to agglomerate formation and increased hydroxyapatite formation compared to commercially available microparticles. The cytocompatibility of BG containing composites increased significantly with increasing particle concentration. A clear trend regarding particle size was not observed. In general, the simple incorporation of particles into medical grade silicone elastomer allowed an easy modification of the mechanical properties and improvement in bioactivity (assessed by hydroxyapatite formation) of the material. The choice of either nano- or microparticles depends on the specific application and requirements for the material, as different particle types show different advantages and disadvantages.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the authors’ institutions. We would like to thank Carlos Mora for the support with the cell experiments and the Laboratory for Interfaces, Soft matter and Assembly of ETH Zurich for support with the contact angle measurements.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10853_2017_1007_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.4 mb)
The supplementary information additionally provides particle or agglomerate size distributions of the BG45S5® particle types. It also provides the XRD diffractograms of 10 wt% nano-BG after immersion in SBF for 2 and 4 weeks and the XRD diffractograms of Schott-BG and Mo-Sci-BG containing silicone composites after 4 weeks in SBF at different concentrations. The results of a protein adsorption assay on the different composites are given, as well as light microscopy images of the composites before and after immersion in SBF. Detailed cross-sectional SEM images of the films before and after immersion in SBF a provided, as well as planar section SEM images of composites before and after immersion in SBF (PDF 1443 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hench LL, Splinter RJ, Allen WC, Greenlee TK (1971) Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials. J Biomed Mater Res 5:117–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hench LL (2006) The story of Bioglass®. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17:967–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hench LL (1998) Bioceramics, a clinical success. Am Ceram Soc Bull 77:67–74Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones JR (2013) Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater 9:4457–4486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoppe A, Güldal NS, Boccaccini AR (2011) A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials 32:2757–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, Buttery LDK, Hench LL, Polak JM (2000) Ionic products of bioactive glass dissolution increase proliferation of human osteoblasts and induce insulin-like growth factor II mRNA Expression and protein synthesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 276:461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jell G, Stevens MM (2006) Gene activation by bioactive glasses. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17:997–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miguez-Pacheco V, Hench LL, Boccaccini AR (2015) Bioactive glasses beyond bone and teeth: emerging applications in contact with soft tissues. Acta Biomater 13:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorustovich AA, Roether JA, Boccaccini AR (2009) Effect of Bioactive glasses on angiogenesis: a review of in vitro and in vivo evidences. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 16:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu S, Chang J, Liu M, Ning C (2009) Study on antibacterial effect of 45S5 Bioglass®. J Mater Sci Mater Med 20:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rai R, Tallawi M, Grigore A, Boccaccini AR (2012) Synthesis, properties and biomedical applications of poly(glycerol sebacate) (PGS): a review. Prog Polym Sci 37:1051–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen Q, Jin L, Cook WD, Mohn D, Lagerqvist EL, Elliott DA, Haynes JM, Boyd N, Stark WJ, Pouton CW, Stanley EG, Elefanty AG (2010) Elastomeric nanocomposites as cell delivery vehicles and cardiac support devices. Soft Matter 6:4715–4726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ostomel TA, Shi Q, Tsung C-K, Liang H, Stucky GD (2006) Spherical bioactive glass with enhanced rates of hydroxyapatite deposition and hemostatic activity. Small 2:1261–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bunting S, Di Silvio L, Deb S, Hall S (2005) Bioresorbable glass fibres facilitate peripheral nerve regeneration. J Hand Surg Eur 30:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boccaccini AR, Blaker JJ, Maquet V, Day RM, Jérôme R (2005) Preparation and characterisation of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and PLGA/Bioglass® composite tubular foam scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 25:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moosvi SR, Day RM (2009) Bioactive glass modulation of intestinal epithelial cell restitution. Acta Biomater 5:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walker RD, Wilson J, Clark AE (1992) Injectable bioglass as a potential substitute for injectable polytetrafluoroethylene. J Urol 148:645–647Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verrier S, Blaker JJ, Maquet V, Hench LL, Boccaccini AR (2004) PDLLA/Bioglass® composites for soft-tissue and hard-tissue engineering: an in vitro cell biology assessment. Biomaterials 25:3013–3021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hench LL, Greenspan D (2013) Interactions between bioactive glass and collagen: a review and new perspectives. J Aust Ceram Soc 49:1–40Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marotta JS, LaTorre G, Batich C, Hench LL (2001) Percutaneous biofixed medical implants. US Patent US6299930 B1, Oct 9Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ross EA, Batich CD, Clapp WL, Sallustio JE, Lee NC (2003) Tissue adhesion to bioactive glass-coated silicone tubing in a rat model of peritoneal dialysis catheters and catheter tunnels. Kidney Int 63:702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rai R, Roether JA, Knowles JC, Mordan N, Salih V, Locke IC, Gordge MP, Cormick AM, Mohn D, Stark WJ, Keshavarz T, Boccaccini AR, Roy I (2016) Highly elastomeric poly(3-hydroxyoctanoate) based natural polymer composite for enhanced keratinocyte regeneration. Int J Polym Mater Po 66:326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCandless SP, Ledford ID, Mason NO, Alharethi R, Rasmusson BY, Budge D, Stoker SL, Clayson SE, Doty JR, Thomsen GE, Caine WT, Kfoury AG, Reid BB, Miller DV (2015) Comparing velour versus silicone interfaces at the driveline exit site of HeartMate II devices: infection rates, histopathology, and ultrastructural aspects. Cardiovasc Pathol 24:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dean D, Kallel F, Ewald GA, Tatooles A, Sheridan BC, Brewer RJ, Caldeira C, Farrar DJ, Akhter SA (2015) Reduction in driveline infection rates: results from the HeartMate II multicenter driveline silicone skin interface (SSI) registry. J Heart Lung Transplant 34:781–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Recum AF, Park JB (1981) Permanent percutaneous devices. Crit Rev Bioeng 5:37–77Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubinfeld G, Levine JP, Reyentovich A, DeAnda A, Balsam LB (2015) Management of rapidly ascending driveline tunnel infection. J Card Surg 30:853–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feldman DS, Hultman SM, Colaizzo RS, von Recum AF (1983) Electron microscope investigation of soft tissue ingrowth into Dacron® velour with dogs. Biomaterials 4:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merchel RA, Reid BB, McCandless SP, Caine WT, Ledford ID, Clayson SE, Carter AK, Rasmusson B, Stoker S, Budge D, Alharethi RA, Kfoury AG (2012) Impact of driveline material and size on exit site healing time in left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 31:S21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ledford I, Miller D, Mason N, Alharethi R, Rasmusson B, Budge D, Stoker S, Clayson S, Doty J, Thomsen G (2011) 8 differential infection rates between velour versus silicone interface at the HeartMate II driveline exit site: structural and ultrastructural insight into possible causes. J Heart Lung Transplant 30:S10–S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ledford ID, Miller DV, Mason NO (2011) Differential infection rates between velour versus silicone interface at the HeartMate II driveline exit site: structural and ultrastructural insight into possible causes. In: Paper presented at the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, San Diego, CA, April 13–16Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brunner TJ, Grass RN, Stark WJ (2006) Glass and bioglass nanopowders by flame synthesis. Chem Commun 13:1384–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H (2006) How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials 27:2907–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Misra SK, Ansari TI, Valappil SP, Mohn D, Philip SE, Stark WJ, Roy I, Knowles JC, Salih V, Boccaccini AR (2010) Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) multifunctional composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 31:2806–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schneider OD, Loher S, Brunner TJ, Uebersax L, Simonet M, Grass RN, Merkle HP, Stark WJ (2008) Cotton wool-like nanocomposite biomaterials prepared by electrospinning: in vitro bioactivity and osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Mater Res Part B 84B:350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin C, Mao C, Zhang J, Li Y, Chen X (2012) Healing effect of bioactive glass ointment on full-thickness skin wounds. Biomed Mater 7:045017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fahrni F, Prins MWJ, van Ijzendoorn LJ (2009) Magnetization and actuation of polymeric microstructures with magnetic nanoparticles for application in microfluidics. J Magn Magn Mater 321:1843–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schrooten J, Jaecques SVN, Eloy R, Delubac C, Schultheiss C, Brenner P, Buth LHO, Van Humbeeck J, Sloten JV (2004) Bioactive glass coating for hard and soft tissue bonding on Ti6Al4V and silicone rubber using electron beam ablation. Key Eng Mater 254–256:427–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mačković M, Hoppe A, Detsch R, Mohn D, Stark WJ, Spiecker E, Boccaccini AR (2012) Bioactive glass (type 45S5) nanoparticles: in vitro reactivity on nanoscale and biocompatibility. J Nanopart Res 14:1–22Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jones JR, Sepulveda P, Hench LL (2001) Dose-dependent behavior of bioactive glass dissolution. J Biomed Mater Res 58:720–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mozafari M, Moztarzadeh F, Tahriri M (2010) Investigation of the physico-chemical reactivity of a mesoporous bioactive SiO2–CaO–P2O5 glass in simulated body fluid. J Non Cryst Solids 356:1470–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fukano Y, Knowles NG, Usui ML, Underwood RA, Hauch KD, Marshall AJ, Ratner BD, Giachelli C, Carter WG, Fleckman P, Olerud JE (2006) Characterization of an in vitro model for evaluating the interface between skin and percutaneous biomaterials. Wound Repair Regen 14:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abbasi F, Mirzadeh H, Katbab A-A (2001) Modification of polysiloxane polymers for biomedical applications: a review. Polym Int 50:1279–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jarrell JD, Dolly B, Morgan JR (2010) Rapid screening, in vitro study of metal oxide and polymer hybrids as delivery coatings for improved soft-tissue integration of implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 92:1094–1104Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Camara DL, Sheridan JM, Kammer BA (1993) Rupture and aging of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 91:828–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Misra SK, Mohn D, Brunner TJ, Stark WJ, Philip SE, Roy I, Salih V, Knowles JC, Boccaccini AR (2008) Comparison of nanoscale and microscale bioactive glass on the properties of P(3HB)/Bioglass® composites. Biomaterials 29:1750–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fu S-Y, Feng X-Q, Lauke B, Mai Y-W (2008) Effects of particle size, particle/matrix interface adhesion and particle loading on mechanical properties of particulate–polymer composites. Compos Part B Eng 39:933–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Meyers MA, Chen P, Lin AY, Seki Y (2008) Biological materials: structure and mechanical properteies. Prog Mater Sci 53:1–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Agache PG, Monneur C, Leveque JL, De Rigal J (1980) Mechanical properties and Young’s modulus of human skin in vivo. Arch Dermatol Res 269:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kemaloglu S, Ozkoc G, Aytac A (2010) Properties of thermally conductive micro and nano size boron nitride reinforced silicon rubber composites. Thermochim Acta 499:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Landon G, Lewis G, Boden GF (1977) The influence of particle size on the tensile strength of particulate—filled polymers. J Mater Sci 12:1605–1613. doi:10.1007/BF00542811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang Y, Ameer GA, Sheppard BJ, Langer R (2002) A tough biodegradable elastomer. Nat Biotechnol 20:602–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dupont-Gillain CC, Nysten B, Rouxhet PG (1999) Collagen adsorption on poly(methyl methacrylate): net-like structure formation upon drying. Polym Int 48:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Guth E (1945) Theory of filler reinforcement. J Appl Phys 16:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas H. Cohrs
    • 1
  • Konstantin Schulz-Schönhagen
    • 1
  • Florian Jenny
    • 1
  • Dirk Mohn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wendelin J. Stark
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute for Chemical- and BioengineeringETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations