Preparation of a novel biodegradable nanocomposite scaffold based on poly (3-hydroxybutyrate)/bioglass nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering

  • Hadi Hajiali
  • Saeed KarbasiEmail author
  • Mohammad Hosseinalipour
  • Hamid Reza Rezaie


One of the most important challenges in composite scaffolds is pore architecture. In this study, poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) with 10% bioglass nanoparticles was prepared by the salt leaching processing technique, as a nanocomposite scaffold. The scaffolds were characterized by SEM, FTIR and DTA. The SEM images demonstrated uniformed porosities of appropriate sizes (about 250–300 μm) which are interconnected. Furthermore, higher magnification SEM images showed that the scaffold possesses less agglomeration and has rough surfaces that may improve cell attachment. In addition, the FTIR and DTA results showed favorable interaction between polymer and bioglass nanoparticles which improved interfaces in the samples. Moreover, the porosity of the scaffold was assessed, and the results demonstrated that the scaffold has uniform and high porosity in its structure (about 84%). Finally it can be concluded that this scaffold has acceptable porosity and morphologic character paving the way for further studies to be conducted from the perspective of bone tissue engineering.


Differential Thermal Analysis Bioactive Glass Polyhydroxyalkanoates Bone Tissue Engineering Composite Scaffold 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993;260:920–6.CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:10–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mastrogiacomo M, Muraglia A, Komlev V, Peyrin F, Rustichelli F, Crovace A, et al. Tissue engineering of bone: search for a better scaffold. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2005;8:277–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonfiglio M, Jeter WS. Immunological responses to bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1972;87:19–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vacanti JP, Vacanti CA. In: Lanza RP, Langer R, Vacanti J, editors. Principles of tissue engineering. 2nd ed. California: Academic Press; 2000. p. 3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Temenoff JS, Lu L, Mikos AG. In: Davies JE, editor. Bone engineering. Toronto: EM Squared; 2000. p. 455.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laurencin CT, Attawia M, Borden MD. Advancements in tissue engineered bone substitutes. Curr Opin Orthop. 1999;10:445–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coombes AG, Meikle MC. Resorbable synthetic polymers as replacements for bone graft. Clin Mater. 1994;17:35–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salgada AJ, Coutinho OP, Reis RL. Bone tissue engineering: state of the art and future trends. Macromol Biosci. 2004;4:743–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2529–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guoping C, Takashi U, Tetsuya T. Scaffold design for tissue engineering. Macromol Biosci. 2002;2(2):67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma PX. Scaffolds for tissue fabrication. Mater Today. 2004;7(5):30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams SF, Martin DP, Horowitz DM, Peoples OP. PHA applications: addressing the price performance issue I. Tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 1999;25:111–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao K, Deng Y, Chen JC, Chen GQ. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) scaffolds with good mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2003;2:1041–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valappil SP, Misra SK, Boccaccini AR, Roy I. Biomedical applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates, an overview of animal testing and in vivo responses. Expert Rev Med Device. 2006;3:853–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen GQ, Wu Q. The application of polyhydroxyalkanoate as tissue engineering materials. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6565–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freier T, Sternberg K, Behrend D, Schmitz KP. Health issues of biopolymers: polyhydroxybutyrate. In: Doi Y, Steinbu¨chel A, editors. Biopolymers. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2002. p. 247.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reusch RN. Low molecular weight complexed poly(3-hydroxybutyrate): a dynamic and versatile molecule in vivo. Can J Microbiol. 1995;41(Suppl. 1):50–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin DP, Peoples OP, Williams SF, Zhong LH. Nutritional and therapeutic uses of 3-hydroxyalkanoate oligomers. US Patent Appl 359086, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nebe B, Forster C, Pommerenke H, Fulda G, Behrend D, Bernewski U, et al. Structural alterations of adhesion mediating components in cells cultured on poly b hydroxyl butyric acid. Biomaterials. 2001;22:2425–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shishatskaya EI, Volova TG. A comparative investigation of biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate films as matrices for in vitro cell cultures. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004;15:915–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zinn M, Witholt B, Egli T. Occurrence, synthesis and medical application of bacterial polyhydroxyalkanoate. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;53:5–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Young RC, Wiberg M, Terenghi G. Poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB): a resorbable conduit for long gap repair in peripheral nerves. Br J Plast Surg. 2002;55:235–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Novikova LN, Pettersson J, Brohlin M, Wiberg M, Novikov LN. Biodegradable poly-b-hydroxybutyrate scaffold seeded with Schwann cells to promote spinal cord repair. Biomaterials. 2009;29:1198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fukada E, Ando Y. Piezoelectric properties of poly-b-hydroxybutyrate and copolymers of b-hydroxybutyrate and b-hydroxyvalerate. Int J Biol Macromol. 1986;8:361–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knowles JC, Mahmud FA, Hastings GW. Piezoelectric characteristics of polyhydroxybutyrate based composite. Clin Mater. 1991;8:155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao Y, Zou B, Shi Z, Wu Q, Che GQ. The effect of 3-hydroxybutyrate on the in vitro differentiation of murine osteoblast MC3T3-E1 and in vivo bone formation in ovariectomized rats. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3063–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Galego N, Rozsa C, Sanchez R, Fung J, Vazquez A, Tomas JS. Characterization and application of poly(b-hydroxyalkanoates) family as composite biomaterials. Polym Test. 2000;19:485–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Misra SK, Valappil SP, Roy I, Boccaccini AR. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)/inorganic phase composites for tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules. 2006;7:2249–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ni J, Wang M. In vitro evaluation of hydroxyapatite reinforced polyhydroxybutyrate composite. Mater Sci Eng C-Bio S. 2002;20:101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luklinska ZB, Bonfield W. Morphology and ultrastructure of the interface between hydroxyapatite-polyhydroxybutyrate composite implant and bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1997;8:379–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Misra SK, Nazhat SN, Valappil SP, Torbati MM, Wood RJK, Roy I, et al. Fabrication and characterization of biodegradable poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) composite containing Bioglass. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8:2112–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fisher JP, Mikos AG, Bronzino GD. Tissue engineering: nanocomposite scaffolds for tissue engineering. CRC Press; 2007. p 11.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wei G, Ma PX. Structural and properties of nano-hydroxyapatite/polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2004;25:4749–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wanga H, Lia Y, Zuoa Y, Lib J, Mab S, Chenga L. Biocompatibility and osteogenesis of biomimetic nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3338–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guan D, Chen Z, Huang C, Lin Y. Attachment, proliferation and differentiation of BMSCs on gas-jet/electrospun nHAP/PHB fibrous scaffolds. Appl Surf Sci. 2008;255:324–7.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ginebra MP, Driessens FCM, Planell JA. Effect of the particle size on the micro and nanostructural features of calcium phosphate cement: a kinetic analysis. Biomaterials. 2004;25:3453–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kalita SJ, Bhardwaj A, Bhatt HA. Nanocrystalline calcium phosphate ceramics in biomedical engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2007;27:441–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang F, Lin K, Chang J, Lu J, Ning C. Spark plasma sintering o macro-porous calcium phosphate scaffolds from nano-crystalline powders. J Eu Ceram Soc. 2008;28(3):539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vollenweider M, Brunner TJ, Knecht S, Grass RN, Zehnder M, Imfeld T, et al. Remineralization of human dentin using ultrafine bioactive glass particles. Acta Biomater. 2007;3:936–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brunner TJ, Grass RN, Stark WJ. Glass and bioglass nanopowders by flame synthesis. Chem Commun. 2006;13:1384–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rhee SH, Choi JY. Preparation of a bioactive poly (methyl methacrylate)/silica nanocomposite. J Am Ceram Soc. 2002;85:1318–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Misra SK, Mohn D, Brunner TJ, Stark WJ, Philip SE, Roy I, et al. Comparison of nanoscale and microscale bioactive glass on the properties of P(3HB)/Bioglass composites. Biomaterials. 2008;29:1750–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hong Z, Reis RL, Mano JF. Preparation and in vitro characterization of scaffolds of poly(L-lactic acid) containing bioactive glass ceramic nanoparticles. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:1297–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lu X, Lv X, Sun Z, Zheng Y. Nanocomposites of poly(l-lactide) and surface-grafted TiO2 nanoparticles: synthesis and characterization. Eur Polym J. 2008;44:2476–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Torres FG, Nazhat SN, Md Sheikh, Fadzullah SH, Maquet V, Boccaccini AR. Mechanical properties and bioactivity of porous PLGA/TiO2 nanoparticle-filled composites for tissue engineering scaffolds. Compos Sci Technol. 2007;67:1139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boccaccini AR, Gerhardt LC, Rebeling S, Blaker JJ. Fabrication, characterization and assessment of bioactivity of poly (d, l-lactid acid) (PDLLA)/TiO2 nanocomposite films. Compos Part A-Appl S. 2005;36:721–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cooper CA, Ravich D, Lips D, Mayer J, Wagner HD. Distribution and alignment of carbon nanotubes and nanofibrils in a polymer matrix. Comp Sci Technol. 2002;62:1105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Misra1 SK, Watts PCP, Valappil1 SP, Silva SRP, Roy I, Boccaccini AR. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)/Bioglass_composite films containing carbon nanotubes. Nanotechnology. 2007;18:075701(7 pp).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grausova L, Kromka A, Bacakova L, Potocky S, Vanecek M, Lisa V. Bone and vascular endothelial cells in cultures on nanocrystalline diamond films. Diam Relat Mater. 2008;17:1405–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Palin E, Liu HN, Webster TJ. Mimicking the nanofeatures of bone increases bone-forming cell adhesion and proliferation. Nanotechnology. 2005;16:1828–35.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wilson J, Pigot GH, Schoen FJ, Hench LL. Toxicology and Biocompatibility of bioglass. J Biomed Mater Res. 1981;15:805–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Oonishi H, Kutrshitani S, Yasukawa E, Iwaki H, Hench LL, Wilson J, et al. Particulate bioglass compared with hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;334:316–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Maquet V, Boccaccini AR, Pravata L, Notingher I, Jerome R. Porous poly(a-hydroxyacid)/bioglasss composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. I: preparation and in vitro characterisation. Biomaterials. 2004;25:4185–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boccaccini AR. Bioresorbable and bioactive composite materials based on polylactide foams filled with and coated by Bioglasss particles for tissue engineering applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003;14:350–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gatti AM, Valdre G, Andersson OH. Analysis of the in vivo reactions of a bioactive glass in soft and hard tissue. Biomaterials. 1994;15:208–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fathi MH, Doostmohammadi A. Preparation and characterization of sol–gel bioactive glass coating for improvement of biocompatibility of human body implant. Mat Sci Eng A-Struct. 2008;474:128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fathi MH, Doostmohammadi A. Bioactive glass nanopowder and bioglass coating for biocompatibility improvement of metallic implant. J Mater Process Tech. 2009;209:1385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Murphy CM, Haugh MG, O’Brien FJ. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Oh SH, Park K, Kim JM, Lee JH. In vitro and in vivo characteristics of PCL scaffolds with pore size gradient fabricated by a centrifugation method. Biomaterials. 2007;28(9):1664–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petite H, Quarto R. Engineered bone: tissue engineering of bone.; 2005. p. 108.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Deligianni DD, Katsala N, Ladas S, Sotiropoulou D, Amedee J, Missirlis YF. Effect of surface roughness of the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V on human bone marrow cell response and on protein adsorption. Biomaterials. 2001;22:1241–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kunzler TP, Drobek T, Schuler M, Spencer ND. Systematic study of osteoblast and fibroblast response to roughness by means of surface-morphology gradients. Biomaterials. 2007;28:2175–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Boissard CIR, Bourban PE, Tami AE, Alini M, Eglin D. Nanohydroxyapatite/poly(ester urethane) scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:3316–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Deng C, Wen J, Lu X, Zhou SB, Wan JX, Qu SX, et al. Mechanism of ultrahigh elongation rate of poly(d, l-lactide)-matrix composite biomaterial containing nano-apatite fillers. Mater Lett. 2008;62:607–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhu ZK, Yang Y, Yin J, Qi ZN. Preparation and properties of organosoluble polyimide/silica hybrid materials by sol–gel process. J Appl Polym Sci. 1999;73:2977–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Matthews JA, Wnek GE, Simpson DG, Bowlin GL. Electrospinning of collagen nanofibers. Biomacromolecules. 2002;3(2):232–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Boland ED, Matthews JA, Pawlowski KJ, Simpson DG, Wnek GE, Bowlin GL. Electrospinning collagen and elastin: preliminary vascular tissue engineering. Front Biosci. 2004;9:1422–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lutolf MP, Hubbell JA. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(1):47–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pappas GS, Liatsi P, Kartsonakis IA, Danilidis I, Kordas G. Synthesis and characterization of new SiO2–CaO hollow nanospheres by sol–gel method: bioactivity of the new system. J Non-Cryst Solids. 2008;354:755–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shajan XS, Mahadevan C. FT-IR spectroscopic and thermal studies on pure and impurityadded calcium tartrate tetrahydrate crystals. Cryst Res Technol. 2005;40:598–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Xua J, Guoa BH, Yanga R, Wub Q, Chenb GQ, Zhang ZM. In situ FTIR study on melting and crystallization of polyhydroxyalkanoates. Polymer. 2002;43:6893–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sanz-Herrera A, Garcia-Aznar JM, Doblare M. A mathematical model for bone tissue regeneration inside a specific type of scaffold. Biomech Model Mech. 2008;7:355–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hadi Hajiali
    • 1
  • Saeed Karbasi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mohammad Hosseinalipour
    • 1
  • Hamid Reza Rezaie
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomaterial Group, School of Metallurgy and Materials EngineeringIran University of Science and Technology (IUST)NarmakIran
  2. 2.Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Group, School of MedicineIsfahan University of Medical ScienceIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations