Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 2061–2068 | Cite as

Carbon-centered radicals in γ-irradiated bone substituting biomaterials based on hydroxyapatite

  • Jaroslaw Sadlo
  • Grazyna Strzelczak
  • Malgorzata Lewandowska-Szumiel
  • Marcin Sterniczuk
  • Lukasz Pajchel
  • Jacek Michalik
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 279 Downloads

Abstract

Gamma irradiated synthetic hydroxyapatite, bone substituting materials NanoBone® and HA Biocer were examined using EPR spectroscopy and compared with powdered human compact bone. In every case, radiation-induced carbon centered radicals were recorded, but their molecular structures and concentrations differed. In compact bone and synthetic hydroxyapatite the main signal assigned to the CO2 − anion radical was stable, whereas the signal due to the CO3 3− radical dominated in NanoBone® and HA Biocer just after irradiation. However, after a few days of storage of these samples, also a CO2 − signal was recorded. The EPR study of irradiated compact bone and the synthetic graft materials suggest that their microscopic structures are different. In FT-IR spectra of NanoBone®, HA Biocer and synthetic hydroxyapatite the HPO4 2− and CO3 2− in B-site groups are detected, whereas in compact bone signals due to collagen dominate.

Keywords

Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Hydroxyapatite Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectrum Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Signal Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy 
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.

Abbreviations

EPR

Electron paramagnetic resonance

HA

Hydroxyapatite

FT-IR

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education: Grant N N507 469 937. The authors are grateful to the National Centre of Tissue and Cell Banking, Warsaw, Poland, for the human bone samples.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Dorozhkin SV. Bioceramics of calcium orthophosphates. Biomaterials. 2010;31:1465–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leventouri Th. Synthetic and biological hydroxyapatites: crystal structure questions. Biomaterials. 2006;27:3339–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Von Doernberg MC, Rechenberg B, Bohner M, Grunenfelder S, van Lenthe GH, Muller R, Gasser B, Mathys R, Baroud G, Auer J. In vivo behaviour of calcium phosphate scaffold with four different pore sizes. Biomaterials. 2006;27:5186–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orly I, Gregorie M, Menanteau J, Heughebaert M, Kerebel B. Chemical changes in hydroxyapatite biomaterial under in vivo and in vitro biological conditions. Calcif Tissue Int. 1989;45:20–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galea LG, Bohner M, Lemaitre J, Kohler T, Muller R. Bone substitute: transforming β-tricalcium phosphate porous scaffold. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3400–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okuda T, Ioku K, Yonezawa I, Minagi H, Kawachi G, Gonda Y, Murayama H, Shibata Y, Minami S, Kamihira S, Kurosawa H, Ikeda T. The effect of the microstructure of β-tricalcium phosphate on the metabolism of subsequently formed bone tissue. Biomaterials. 2007;28:2612–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu HD, Zhang ZY, Win KY, Yu H, Chan JKY, Teoh SH, Han MY. Fabrication and osteoregenerative application of composition-tunable CaCO3/HA composites. J Mater Chem. 2011;21:4588–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietz S, Bayerlein T, Proff P, Hoffmann A, Gedrange T. The ultrastructure and processing properties of Straumann bone ceramic® and NanoBone. Folia Morphol. 2006;65:63–5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Slosarczyk A. Biomateriały ceramiczne. In: Nalecz M, editor. Biomateriały. Warszawa: Akademicka Oficyna Wydawnicza Exit; 2003. p. 99–156. (in polish).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zavoisky EK. Spin-magnetic resonance in paramagnetics. J Phys USSR. 1945;9:245–55.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stone AJ. Gauge in variance of the g tensor. Proc R Soc A. 1963;271:424–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weil JA, Bolton JR, Wertz JE. Electron paramagnetic resonance: Elementary theory and applications. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fattibene P, Callens F. EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel: a review. Appl Radiat Isot. 2010;68:2033–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stachowicz W, Sadlo J, Strzelczak G, Michalik J, Bondiera P, Mazzarello V, Montanella A, Wojtowicz A, Kaminski A, Ostrowski K. Dating of palaeoantropological nuragic skeletal tissue using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. Ital J Anat Embryol. 1999;104:19–31.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trompier F, Sadlo J, Michalik J, Stachowicz W, Mazal A, Clairand I, Rostkowska J, Bulski W, Kulakowski A, Sluszniak J, Gozdz S, Wojcik A. EPR dosimetry for actual and suspected overexposures during radiotherapy treatments in Poland. Radiat Meas. 2007;42:1025–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadlo J, Michalik J, Stachowicz W, Strzelczak G, Dziedzic-Goclawska A, Ostrowski K. EPR study on biominerals as materials for retrospective dosimetry. Nukleonika. 2006;51(Suppl 1):95–100.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strzelczak G, Sadlo J, Michalik J. X- and Q-band EPR study on dosimetric biomaterials. Nukleonika. 2009;54:247–50.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Callens F, Vanhaelewyn G, Matthys P, Boesman E. EPR of carbonate derived radicals: applications in dosimetry, dating and detection of irradiated food. Appl Magn Reson. 1998;14:235–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ziaie F, Stachowicz W, Strzelczak G, Al-Osaimi S. Using bone powder for dosimetric system EPR response under the action of γ irradiation. Nukleonika. 1999;44:603–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Callens FJ, Verbeeck RMH, Naessens DE, Matthys PFA, Boesman ER. The effect of carbonate content and drying temperature on the ESR-spectrum near g = 2 of carbonated calcium apatites synthesized from aqueous media. Calcif Tissue Int. 1991;48:249–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moens PD, Verbeeck RM, De Volder PJ, Callens FJ, De Maeyer EAP. Spectrum decomposition through maximum likelihood common factor analysis of the EPR spectra of Na+ containing carbonated apatites dried at 400 °C. Calcif Tissue Int. 1993;53:416–23.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moens PD, Callens FJ, Matthys PF, Verbeeck RM. 31P and 1H powder endor and molecular orbital study of a CO3 3− ion in x-irradiated carbonate containing hydroxyapatites. J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans. 1994;90(18):2653–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadlo J, Matthys P, Vanhaelewyn G, Callens F, Michalik J, Stachowicz W. EPR and ENDOR of radiation-induced CO3 3− radicals in human tooth enamel heated at 400 °C. J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans. 1998;94:3275–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strzelczak G, Sadlo J, Danilczuk M, Stachowicz W, Callens F, Vanhaelewyn G, Goovearts E, Michalik J. Multifrequency electron paramagnetic resonance study on deproteinized human bone. Spectrochim Acta Part A. 2007;67:1206–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ikeya M. Phosphates: bioapatite for anthropology. In: Zimmerman MR, Whitehead N, editors. New application of electron spin resonance: dating, dosimetry and microscopy. Singapore: World Scientific; 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Idrissi S, Callens F, Moens P, Debuyst R, Dejehet F. An electron nuclear double resonance and electron spin resonance study of isotropic CO2 − and SO2 − radicals in natural carbonates. Jpn J Appl Phys. 1996;35:5331–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Strzelczak G, Vanhaelewyn G, Stachowicz W, Goovaerts E, Callens F, Michalik J. Multifrequency EPR study of carbonate- and sulfate-derived radicals produced by radiation in shell and corallite. Radiat Res. 2001;155:619–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    www.artoss.com/dental.html. Accessed 7 November 2011.
  31. 31.
    Clasen ABS, Ruyter IE. Quantitative determination of type A and type B carbonate in human deciduous and permanent enamel by means of fourier transform infrared spectrometry. Adv Dent Res. 1997;11:523–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaflak A, Slosarczyk A, Kolodziejski W. A comparative study of carbonate bands from nanocrystalline carbonated hydroxyapatites using FT-IR spectroscopy in the transmission and photoacoustic modes. J Mol Struct. 2011;997:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Galkowska E, Kiernicka M, Owczarek B, Wysokinska-Miszczuk J. The use of HA-Biocer in the complex treatment of aggressive periodontal diseases. Ann Univ Mariae Curie Sklodowska Med. 2003;58:231–5.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blaszczak-Mielnik M, Krawczyk D, Pels E. The application of synthetic hydroxyapatite in children and adolescents in various clinical cases. Ann Univ Mariae Curie Sklodowska Med. 2001;56:95–8.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zietek M, Gedrange T, Mikulewicz M. Long term evaluation of biomaterial application in surgical treatment of periodontitis. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008;59(Suppl 5):81–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Canullo L, Dellavia C, Heinemann F. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation using a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite silica gel: case series and 3 month preliminary histological results. Ann Anat. 2011; doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2011.04.007.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goetz W, Gerber T, Michel B, Lossdoerfer S, Henkel K-O, Heinemann F. Immunohistochemical characterization of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite silica gel (NanoBones) osteogenesis: a study on biopsies from human jaws. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:1016–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gholami GA, Najafi B, Mashhadiabbas F, Goetz W, Najafi S. Clinical, histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of socket preservation using a synthetic nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in comparison with a bovine xenograft: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02288.x.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bernhardt A, Lode A, Peters F, Gelinsky M. Comparative evaluation of different calcium phosphate-based bone graft granules—an in vitro study with osteoblast-like cells. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02350.x.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu Q, Douglas T, Zamponi C, Becker ST, Sherry E, Sivananthan S, Warnke F, Wiltfang J, Warnke PH. Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of NanoBones and BioOsss for human osteoblasts. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1259–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaroslaw Sadlo
    • 1
  • Grazyna Strzelczak
    • 1
  • Malgorzata Lewandowska-Szumiel
    • 2
  • Marcin Sterniczuk
    • 1
  • Lukasz Pajchel
    • 3
  • Jacek Michalik
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and TechnologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Histology and EmbryologyMedical University of WarsawWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Department of Inorganic and Analytical ChemistryMedical University of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations