Preparation and characterization of fibrous chitosan-glued phosphate glass fiber scaffolds for bone regeneration

  • Kai ZhengEmail author
  • Zhaoying Wu
  • Jie Wei
  • Christian Rűssel
  • Wen Liang
  • Aldo R. Boccaccini
Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization


Phosphate glass fibers (PGF) have emerged as promising building blocks for constructing bone scaffolds. In this study, fibrous scaffolds (PGFS) were fabricated using a facile binding method at room temperature. PGFS exhibited an extracellular matrix-like morphology and were composed of PGF as matrix and chitosan as the natural binding glue. They showed an interconnected porous structure with a porosity of ~87 % and pore size of 100–500 µm. PGFS exhibited the typical compressive stress–strain behaviour of highly porous, low-density, open-cell scaffolds. Their yield stress and modulus were ~0.38 and ~2.84 MPa, respectively, with the strength being higher than the lower bound of the compressive strength of cancellous bone. PGFS were degradable and the weight loss was about 25 % after immersion in stimulated body fluid (SBF) for 28 days. In addition, the yield stress and the modulus decreased with increasing immersion time in SBF. Apatite formation could be detected on the surface of PGFS within 7 days of immersion in SBF. MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay indicated that PGFS were non-cytotoxic against bone marrow stromal cells (bMSCs) after culture for up to 72 h. These results suggest that PGFS could be promising scaffolds for bone regeneration applications.


Chitosan Compressive Strength Bone Marrow Stromal Cell Bioactive Glass Chitosan Solution 
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.



The financial support of National Nature Science Foundation of China (Project for Young Scientists Fund No. 50902048) and Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (IRT0825) was acknowledged. Kai Zheng acknowledges the scholarship from China Scholarship Council (CSC NO.201206740003).


  1. 1.
    Hoppe A, Güldal NS, Boccaccini AR. A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials. 2011;32(11):2757–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hench LL. The story of Bioglass®. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17(11):967–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heikkilä JT, Kukkonen J, Aho AJ, Moisander S, Kyyrönen T, Mattila K. Bioactive glass granules: a suitable bone substitute material in the operative treatment of depressed lateral tibial plateau fractures: A prospective, randomized 1 year follow-up study. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011;22(4):1073–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vargas GE, Haro DLA, Cadena V, Romero M, Mesones RV, Mačković M, et al. Effect of nano-sized bioactive glass particles on the angiogenic properties of collagen based composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24(5):1261–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knowles J. Phosphate based glasses for biomedical applications. J Mater Chem. 2003;13(10):2395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stevens MM, George JH. Exploring and engineering the cell surface interface. Science. 2005;310(5751):1135–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao S, Li L, Wang H, Zhang Y, Cheng X, Zhou N, et al. Wound dressings composed of copper-doped borate bioactive glass microfibers stimulate angiogenesis and heal full-thickness skin defects in a rodent model. Biomaterials. 2015;53:379–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bitar M, Salih V, Knowles JC, Lewis MP. Iron-phosphate glass fiber scaffolds for the hard-soft interface regeneration: the effect of fiber diameter and flow culture condition on cell survival and differentiation. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;87(4):1017–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Modglin VC, Brown RF, Fu Q, Rahaman MN, Jung SB, Day DE. In vitro performance of 13-93 bioactive glass fiber and trabecular scaffolds with MLO-A5 osteogenic cells. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2012;100A(10):2591–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bitar M, Salih V, Mudera V, Knowles JC, Lewis MP. Soluble phosphate glasses: in vitro studies using human cells of hard and soft tissue origin. Biomaterials. 2004;25(12):2283–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahmed I, Lewis M, Olsen I, Knowles JC. Phosphate glasses for tissue engineering: Part 1. Processing and characterisation of a ternary-based P2O5–CaO–Na2O glass system. Biomaterials. 2004;25(3):491–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmed I, Lewis M, Olsen I, Knowles JC. Phosphate glasses for tissue engineering: Part 2. Processing and characterisation of a ternary-based P2O5-CaO-Na2O glass fibre system. Biomaterials. 2004;25(3):501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marcolongo M, Ducheyne P, Garino J, Schepers E. Bioactive glass fiber/polymeric composites bond to bone tissue. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;39(1):161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tuusa SM, Peltola MJ, Tirri T, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Frontal bone defect repair with experimental glass-fiber- reinforced composite with bioactive glass granule coating. J Biomed Mater Res Part B. 2006;82B(1):149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown RF, Day DE, Day TE, Jung S, Rahaman MN, Fu Q. Growth and differentiation of osteoblastic cells on 13-93 bioactive glass fibers and scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2008;4(2):387–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moimas L, Biasotto M, Di Lenarda R, Olivo A, Schmid C. Rabbit pilot study on the resorbability of three-dimensional bioactive glass fibre scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2006;2(2):191–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gabbai-Armelin PR, Souza MT, Kido HW, Tim CR, Bossini PS, Fernandes KR, et al. Characterization and biocompatibility of a fibrous glassy scaffold. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015;. doi: 10.1002/term.2017.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lefebvre L, Chevalier J, Gremillard L, Zenati R, Thollet G, Bernache-Assolant D, et al. Structural transformations of bioactive glass 45S5 with thermal treatments. Acta Mater. 2007;55(10):3305–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Potoczek M. Hydroxyapatite foams produced by gelcasting using agarose. Mater Lett. 2008;62(6–7):1055–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu X, Rahaman MN, Fu Q, Tomsia AP. Porous and strong bioactive glass (13-93) scaffolds prepared by unidirectional freezing of camphene-based suspensions. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(1):415–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu ZY, Hill RG, Yue S, Nightingale D, Lee PD, Jones JR. Melt-derived bioactive glass scaffolds produced by a gel-cast foaming technique. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(4):1807–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li W, Pastrama M, Ding Y, Zheng K, Hellmich C, Boccaccini AR. Ultrasonic elasticity determination of 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds: influence of polymer coating and crosslinking treatment. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;40:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li W, Wang H, Ding Y, Scheithauer EC, Goudouri O-M, Grünewald A, et al. Antibacterial 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds reinforced with genipin cross-linked gelatin for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2015;3:3367–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McNamara SL, Rnjak-Kovacina J, Schmidt DF, Lo TJ, Kaplan DL. Silk as a biocohesive sacrificial binder in the fabrication of hydroxyapatite load bearing scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2014;35(25):6941–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anitha A, Sowmya S, Kumar PTS, Deepthi S, Chennazhi KP, Ehrlich H, et al. Chitin and chitosan in selected biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci. 2014;39(9):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zheng K, Yang S, Wang J, Rűssel C, Liu C, Liang W. Characteristics and biocompatibility of Na2O–K2O–CaO–MgO–SrO–B2O3–P2O5 borophosphate glass fibers. J Non Cryst Solids. 2012;358(2):387–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials. 2006;27(15):2907–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005;26(27):5474–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saranti A, Koutselas I, Karakassides MA. Bioactive glasses in the system CaO–B2O3–P2O5: preparation, structural study and in vitro evaluation. J Non Cryst Solids. 2006;352(5):390–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shih PY, Yung SW, Chin TS. FTIR and XPS studies of P2O5–Na2O–CuO glasses. J Non Cryst Solids. 1999;244:211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abou Neel EA, Pickup DM, Valappil SP, Newport RJ, Knowles JC. Bioactive functional materials: a perspective on phosphate-based glasses. J Mater Chem. 2009;19:690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brugnerotto J, Lizardi J, Goycoolea FM, Argüelles-Monal W, Desbrières J, Rinaudo M. An infrared investigation in relation with chitin and chitosan characterization. Polymer. 2001;42(8):3569–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harley BA, Leung JH, Silva ECCM, Gibson LJ. Mechanical characterization of collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2007;3:463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blaker JJ, Maquet V, Jérôme R, Boccaccini AR, Nazhat SN. Mechanical properties of highly porous PDLLA/Bioglass composite foams as scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2005;1(6):643–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Athanasiou KA, Zhu CF, Lanctot DR, Agrawal CM, Wang X. Fundamentals of biomechanics in tissue engineering of bone. Tissue Eng. 2000;6(4):361–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pirhonen E, Moimas L, Haapanen J. Porous bioactive 3-D glass fiber scaffolds for tissue engineering applications manufactured by sintering technique. Key Eng Mater. 2003;240–242:237–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moroni L, De Wijn JR, Van Blitterswijk CA. 3D fiber-deposited scaffolds for tissue engineering: influence of pores geometry and architecture on dynamic mechanical properties. Biomaterials. 2006;27(7):974–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mneimne M, Hill RG, Bushby AJ, Brauer DS. High phosphate content significantly increases apatite formation of fluoride-containing bioactive glasses. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(4):1827–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zheng K, Solodovnyk A, Li W, Goudouri O-M, Stähli C, Nazhat SN, et al. Aging time and temperature effects on the structure and bioactivity of gel-derived 45S5 glass-ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc. 2015;98(1):30–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27(18):3413–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Derubeis AR, Cancedda R. Bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) in bone engineering: limitations and recent advances. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004;32(1):160–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Zheng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zhaoying Wu
    • 2
  • Jie Wei
    • 2
  • Christian Rűssel
    • 3
  • Wen Liang
    • 4
  • Aldo R. Boccaccini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Institute of BiomaterialsUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Key Laboratory for Ultrafine Materials of Ministry of EducationEast China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Otto Schott Institute of Materials ResearchJena UniversityJenaGermany
  4. 4.Institute of BiomaterialsEast China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations