Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Study on osteogenesis of zinc-loaded carbon nanotubes/chitosan composite biomaterials in rat skull defects

  • 30 Accesses

Abstract

Chitosan with hydroxyapatite composition, a natural polymer, may be a biomaterial of importance for bone regeneration. Carbon nanotube, a nanoscale material, has been another focus for bone restoration. Zinc, an essential trace element, contributes to the development and growth of skeletal system. The purpose of the current research was to investigate the effects of Zinc-loaded Carbon Nanotubes/Chitosan composite biomaterials in the restoration of rat skull defects, and to verify the hypothesis that these zinc ions of appropriate concentration would strengthen the osteogenesis of rat defects. Four different groups of composite biomaterials were fabricated from no Zinc Carbon nanotubes/Chitosan (GN), 0.2% Zinc-Carbon nanotubes/Chitosan (GL), 1% Zinc-Carbon nanotubes/Chitosan (GM) and 2% Zinc-Carbon nanotubes/Chitosan (GH). After characterizations, these composite biomaterials were then transplanted into rat skull defects. The experimental animals were executed at 12 weeks after transplanted surgeries, and the rat skull defects were removed for related analyses. The results of characterizations suggested the Zinc-loaded composite biomaterials possessed good mechanical and osteoinductive properties. An important finding was that the optimal osteogenic effect appeared in rat skull defects transplanted with 1% Zinc-Carbon nanotubes/Chitosan. Overall, these composite biomaterials revealed satisfactory osteogenesis, nevertheless, there was a requirement to further perfect the zinc ion concentrations to achieve the better bone regeneration.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. 1.

    Agarwal R, Garcia AJ. Biomaterial strategies for engineering implants for enhanced osseointegration and bone repair. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015;94:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2015.03.013.

  2. 2.

    Fernandez De Grado G, Keller L, Idoux-Gillet Y, Wagner Q, Musset AM, Benkirane-Jessel N. et al. Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management. J Tissue Eng. 2018;9:2041731418776819. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731418776819.

  3. 3.

    O’malley MJ, Sayres SC, Saleem O, Levine D, Roberts M, Deland JT. et al. Morbidity and complications following percutaneous calcaneal autograft bone harvest. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35:30–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713511806.

  4. 4.

    Winkler T, Sass FA, Duda GN, Schmidt-Bleek K. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering: the unsolved challenge. Bone Jt Res. 2018;7:232–43. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.73.bjr-2017-0270.r1.

  5. 5.

    Verrier S, Alini M, Alsberg E, Buchman SR, Kelly D, Laschke MW. et al. Tissue engineering and regenerative approaches to improving the healing of large bone defects. Eur Cell Mater. 2016;32:87–110.

  6. 6.

    Coimbra P, Ferreira P, De Sousa HC, Batista P, Rodrigues MA, Correia IJ. et al. Preparation and chemical and biological characterization of a pectin/chitosan polyelectrolyte complex scaffold for possible bone tissue engineering applications. Int J Biol Macromol. 2011;48:112–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.10.006.

  7. 7.

    Horn MM, Martins VC, Plepis AM. Influence of collagen addition on the thermal and morphological properties of chitosan/xanthan hydrogels. Int J Biol Macromol. 2015;80:225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.06.011.

  8. 8.

    Thein-Han WW, Misra RD. Biomimetic chitosan-nanohydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:1182–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2008.11.025.

  9. 9.

    Correia CR, Moreira-Teixeira LS, Moroni L, Reis RL, Van Blitterswijk CA, Karperien M. et al. Chitosan scaffolds containing hyaluronic acid for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2011;17:717–30. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2010.0467.

  10. 10.

    Seo S-J, Kim J-J, Kim J-H, Lee J-Y, Shin US, Lee E-J. et al. Enhanced mechanical properties and bone bioactivity of chitosan/silica membrane by functionalized-carbon nanotube incorporation. Compos Sci Technol. 2014;96:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.03.004.

  11. 11.

    Di Martino A, Sittinger M, Risbud MV. Chitosan: a versatile biopolymer for orthopaedic tissue-engineering. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5983–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.016.

  12. 12.

    Nawrotek K, Tylman M, Decherchi P, Marqueste T, Rudnicka K, Gatkowska J. et al. Assessment of degradation and biocompatibility of electrodeposited chitosan and chitosan-carbon nanotube tubular implants. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2016;104:2701–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35812.

  13. 13.

    Eatemadi A, Daraee H, Karimkhanloo H, Kouhi M, Zarghami N, Akbarzadeh Akbarzadeh. et al. Carbon nanotubes: properties, synthesis, purification, and medical applications. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2014;9:393. https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276x-9-393.

  14. 14.

    Aryaei A, Jayatissa AH, Jayasuriya AC. Mechanical and biological properties of chitosan/carbon nanotube nanocomposite films. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102:2704–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34942.

  15. 15.

    Cancian G, Tozzi G, Hussain AA, De Mori A, Roldo M. Carbon nanotubes play an important role in the spatial arrangement of calcium deposits in hydrogels for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27:126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-016-5740-3.

  16. 16.

    Liu Z, Chen K, Davis C, Sherlock S, Cao Q, Chen X. et al. Drug delivery with carbon nanotubes for in vivo cancer treatment. Cancer Res. 2008;68:6652–60. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-08-1468.

  17. 17.

    Price RL, Waid MC, Haberstroh KM, Webster TJ. Selective bone cell adhesion on formulations containing carbon nanofibers. Biomaterials. 2003;24:1877–87.

  18. 18.

    Newman P, Minett A, Ellis-Behnke R, Zreiqat H. Carbon nanotubes: their potential and pitfalls for bone tissue regeneration and engineering. Nanomedicine. 2013;9:1139–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2013.06.001.

  19. 19.

    Karbasi S, Alizadeh ZM. Effects of multi-wall carbon nanotubes on structural and mechanical properties of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)/chitosan electrospun scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Bull Mater Sci. 2017;40:1247–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12034-017-1479-9.

  20. 20.

    Gholizadeh S, Mortarzadeh F, Haghighipour N, Ghazizadeh L, Baghbani F, Shokrgozar MA. et al. Preparation and characterization of novel functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes/chitosan/beta-glycerophosphate scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;97:365–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.12.086.

  21. 21.

    Tapiero H, Tew KD. Trace elements in human physiology and pathology: zinc and metallothioneins. Biomed Pharmacother. 2003;57:399–411.

  22. 22.

    Yamaguchi M. Nutritional factors and bone homeostasis: synergistic effect with zinc and genistein in osteogenesis. Mol Cell Biochem. 2012;366:201–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11010-012-1298-7.

  23. 23.

    Seo HJ, Cho YE, Kim T, Shin HI, Kwun IS. Zinc may increase bone formation through stimulating cell proliferation, alkaline phosphatase activity and collagen synthesis in osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells. Nutr Res Pract. 2010;4:356–61. https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2010.4.5.356.

  24. 24.

    Yusa K, Yamamoto O, Fukuda M, Koyota S, Koizumi Y, Sugiyama T. In vitro prominent bone regeneration by release zinc ion from Zn-modified implant. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;412:273–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.07.082.

  25. 25.

    Yu W, Sun TW, Qi C, Ding Z, Zhao H, Zhao S. et al. Evaluation of zinc-doped mesoporous hydroxyapatite microspheres for the construction of a novel biomimetic scaffold optimized for bone augmentation. Int J Nanomed. 2017;12:2293–2306. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.s126505.

  26. 26.

    Wang H, Zhao S, Xiao W, Cui X, Huang W, Rahaman MN. et al. Three-dimensional zinc incorporated borosilicate bioactive glass scaffolds for rodent critical-sized calvarial defects repair and regeneration. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2015;130:149–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.03.053.

  27. 27.

    Luo X, Barbieri D, Davison N, Yan Y, De Bruijn JD, Yuan H. Zinc in calcium phosphate mediates bone induction: in vitro and in vivo model. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:477–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.10.011.

  28. 28.

    Islam MT, Felfel RM, Abou Neel EA, Grant DM, Ahmed I, Hossain KMZ. Bioactive calcium phosphate-based glasses and ceramics and their biomedical applications: a review. J Tissue Eng. 2017;8:2041731417719170. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731417719170.

  29. 29.

    Wang SF, Shen L, Zhang WD, Tong YJ. Preparation and mechanical properties of chitosan/carbon nanotubes composites. Biomacromolecules. 2005;6:3067–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm050378v.

  30. 30.

    Feng W, Wu Z, Li Y, Feng Y, Yuan X. The fabrication and electrochemical properties of electrospun nanofibers of a multiwalled carbon nanotube grafted by chitosan. Nanotechnology. 2008;19:105707. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/19/10/105707.

  31. 31.

    Da Cunha MR, Menezes FA, Dos Santos GR, Lopes Pinto CA, Barraviera B, Amaro Martins VDC. et al. Hydroxyapatite and a new fibrin sealant derived from snake venom as scaffold to treatment of cranial defects in rats. Mater Res. 2015;18:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-1439.316014.

  32. 32.

    Tanase CE, Sartoris A, Popa MI, Verestiuc L, Unger RE, Kirkpatrick CJ. In vitro evaluation of biomimetic chitosan-calcium phosphate scaffolds with potential application in bone tissue engineering. Biomed Mater. 2013;8:025002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/8/2/025002.

  33. 33.

    Minardi S, Pandolfi L, Taraballi F, Wang X, De Rosa E, Mills ZD. et al. Enhancing vascularization through the controlled release of platelet-derived growth factor-BB. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9:14566–75. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b13760.

  34. 34.

    Mohan S, Raghavendran HB, Karunanithi P, Murali MR, Naveen SV, Talebian S. et al. Incorporation of human-platelet-derived growth factor-BB encapsulated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres into 3D CORAGRAF enhances osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9:9291–9303. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b13422.

  35. 35.

    Shin M, Yoshimoto H, Vacanti JP. In vivo bone tissue engineering using mesenchymal stem cells on a novel electrospun nanofibrous scaffold. Tissue Eng. 2004;10:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1089/107632704322791673.

  36. 36.

    Chesnutt BM, Yuan Y, Buddington K, Haggard WO, Bumgardner JD. Composite chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffolds induce osteocalcin production by osteoblasts in vitro and support bone formation in vivo. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009;15:2571–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0054.

  37. 37.

    Guven G, Gultekin BA, Guven GS, Guzel E, Furat S, Ersanli S. Histologic and histomorphometric comparison of bone regeneration between bone morphogenetic protein-2 and platelet-derived growth factor-BB in experimental groups. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:805–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000002560.

  38. 38.

    Greenhalgh DG, Sprugel KH, Murray MJ, Ross R. PDGF and FGF stimulate wound healing in the genetically diabetic mouse. Am J Pathol. 1990;136:1235–46.

  39. 39.

    Stavri GT, Hong Y, Zachary IC, Breier G, Baskerville PA, Yla-Herttuala S. et al. Hypoxia and platelet-derived growth factor-BB synergistically upregulate the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in vascular smooth muscle cells. FEBS Lett. 1995;358:311–5.

  40. 40.

    Xu L, Lv K, Zhang W, Zhang X, Jiang X, Zhang F. The healing of critical-size calvarial bone defects in rat with rhPDGF-BB, BMSCs, and beta-TCP scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2012;23:1073–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-012-4558-x.

  41. 41.

    Billstrom GH, Blom AW, Larsson S, Beswick AD. Application of scaffolds for bone regeneration strategies: current trends and future directions. Injury. 2013;44(Suppl 1):S28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(13)70007-x.

  42. 42.

    Hirata HH, Munhoz MA, Plepis AM, Martins VC, Santos GR, Galdeano EA. et al. Feasibility study of collagen membranes derived from bovine pericardium and intestinal serosa for the repair of cranial defects in ovariectomised rats. Injury. 2015;46:1215–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.03.039.

  43. 43.

    Rojbani H, Nyan M, Ohya K, Kasugai S. Evaluation of the osteoconductivity of alpha-tricalcium phosphate, beta-tricalcium phosphate, and hydroxyapatite combined with or without simvastatin in rat calvarial defect. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;98:488–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.33117.

  44. 44.

    Da Cunha MR, Gushiken VO, Mardegan Issa JP, Iatecola A, Pettian M, Santos AR,Jr. Osteoconductive capacity of hydroxyapatite implanted into the skull of diabetics. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22:2048–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182319876.

  45. 45.

    Nagata M, Lonnerdal B. Role of zinc in cellular zinc trafficking and mineralization in a murine osteoblast-like cell line. J Nutr Biochem. 2011;22:172–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2010.01.003.

  46. 46.

    Henkel J, Woodruff MA, Epari DR, Steck R, Glatt V, Dickinson IC. et al. Bone regeneration based on tissue engineering conceptions—a 21st century perspective. Bone Res. 2013;1:216–48. https://doi.org/10.4248/br201303002.

  47. 47.

    Parisi L, Toffoli A, Ghiacci G, Macaluso G M. Tailoring the interface of biomaterials to design effective scaffolds. J Funct Biomater, 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9030050.

  48. 48.

    De Man FH, Tigchelaar W, Marti RK, Van Noorden CJ, Van Der Vis HM. Effects of mechanical compression of a fibrous tissue interface on bone with or without high-density polyethylene particles in a rabbit model of prosthetic loosening. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2005;87:1522–33. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.d.01882.

  49. 49.

    Hannink G, Arts JJ. Bioresorbability, porosity and mechanical strength of bone substitutes: what is optimal for bone regeneration? Injury. 2011;42 Suppl 2 :S22–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.008.

  50. 50.

    Velasco MA, Narvaez-Tovar CA, Garzon-Alvarado DA. Design, materials, and mechanobiology of biodegradable scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:729076 https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/729076.

  51. 51.

    Anastasia L, Rota P, Anastasia M, Allevi P. Chemical structure, biosynthesis and synthesis of free and glycosylated pyridinolines formed by cross-link of bone and synovium collagen. Org Biomol Chem. 2013;11:5747–71. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ob40945g.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from Shaanxi Health and Family Planning Commission (CN) (No. 2015112). The funders had no role in the study design, data analysis or decision to publish.

Author information

Correspondence to Dongning He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C., Liu, J., Liu, Y. et al. Study on osteogenesis of zinc-loaded carbon nanotubes/chitosan composite biomaterials in rat skull defects. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 31, 15 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-019-6338-3

Download citation