Smart scaffolds: the future of bioceramic

Special Issue: ESB 2014 Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue: ESB 2014

Abstract

The commercial offer for bioceramic bone substitutes is very large, however, the prerequisites for applications in bone reconstruction and tissue engineering, are most often absent. The main criteria being: on the one hand physico-chemical features providing surgeons with an injectable and/or shapeable biomaterial; on the second hand the multi-scale bioactivity leading to osteoconduction and osteoinduction properties. In order to obtain greater suitability according to the nature of the bone defect to be treated, new bone regeneration technologies, “smart scaffolds” must be developed and optimize to support suitable Ortho Biology.

Keywords

Bone Regeneration Bone Tissue Engineering Osteoinduction Property Niche Concept Biomimetic Mineral 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. FP7-HEALTH-2009-241879 (REBORNE).

References

  1. 1.
    Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA, Marsh D. Fracture healing: the diamond concept. Injury. 2007;38:S3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fellah BH, et al. Osteogenicity of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics and bone autograft in a goat model. Biomaterials. 2008;29(9):1177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yuan H, et al. Cross-species comparison of ectopic bone formation in biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffolds. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(6):1607–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Habibovic P, de Groot K. Osteoinductive biomaterials—properties and relevance in bone repair. J Tissue Eng Regener Med. 2007;1(1):25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daculsi G, Layrolle P. Osteoinductive properties of micro macroporous biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. Key Eng Mater. 2004;254:1005–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le Nihouannen D, et al. Ectopic bone formation by microporous calcium phosphate ceramic particles in sheep muscles. Bone. 2005;36(6):1086–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daculsi G, et al. Smart calcium phosphate bioceramic scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Key Eng Mater. 2013;529:19–23.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daculsi G, et al. Osteoconduction, osteogenicity, osteoinduction, what are the fundamental properties for a smart bone substitutes. IRBM. 2013;34(4):346–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Y, et al. Dissolution properties of different compositions of biphasic calcium phosphate bimodal porous ceramics following immersion in simulated body fluid solution. Ceram Int. 2013;39(6):6751–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daculsi G, Uzel AP, Weiss P, Goyenvalle E, Aguado E. Developments in injectable multiphasic biomaterials. The performance of microporous biphasic calcium phosphate granules and hydrogels. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2010;21(3):855–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lan Levengood SK, et al. Multiscale osteointegration as a new paradigm for the design of calcium phosphate scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 2010;31(13):3552–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamada S, et al. Osteoclastic resorption of calcium phosphate ceramics with different hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium phosphate ratios. Biomaterials. 1997;18(15):1037–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jensen SS, et al. Osteoclast-like cells on deproteinized bovine bone mineral and biphasic calcium phosphate: light and transmission electron microscopical observations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014. doi: 10.1111/clr.12376.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coathup MJ, et al. Effect of increased strut porosity of calcium phosphate bone graft substitute biomaterials on osteoinduction. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100(6):1550–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan O, et al. The effects of microporosity on osteoinduction of calcium phosphate bone graft substitute biomaterials. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(7):2788–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li X, et al. The effect of calcium phosphate microstructure on bone-related cells in vitro. Biomaterials. 2008;29(23):3306–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hollister SJ. Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater. 2005;4(7):518–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sánchez-Salcedo S, et al. In vitro structural changes in porous HA/β-TCP scaffolds in simulated body fluid. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(7):2738–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    LeGeros RZ, Ben-Nissan B. Introduction to synthetic and biologic apatites. Advances in calcium phosphate biomaterials. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Campion CR, et al. Microstructure and chemistry affects apatite nucleation on calcium phosphate bone graft substitutes. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24(3):597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cao W, Hench LL. Bioactive materials. Ceram Int. 1996;22(6):493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vasilescu E, et al. Interactions of some new scaffolds with simulated body fluids. Rev Chim. 2011;62(2):212–5.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chai YC, et al. Current views on calcium phosphate osteogenicity and the translation into effective bone regeneration strategies. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(11):3876–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LeGeros RZ. Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;395:81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Legeros RZ. Biodegradation and bioresorption of calcium phosphate ceramics. Clin Mater. 1993;14(1):65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu J, et al. Comparative study of tissue reactions to calcium phosphate ceramics among cancellous, cortical, and medullar bone sites in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;42(3):357–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSERM U791, Laboratory for Osteoarticular and Dental Tissue Engineering, Dental FacultyNantes UniversityNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations