Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 425–438 | Cite as

Computational modelling of local calcium ions release from calcium phosphate-based scaffolds

  • Varun Manhas
  • Yann Guyot
  • Greet Kerckhofs
  • Yoke Chin Chai
  • Liesbet GerisEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

A variety of natural or synthetic calcium phosphate (CaP)-based scaffolds are currently produced for dental and orthopaedic applications. These scaffolds have been shown to stimulate bone formation due to their biocompatibility, osteoconductivity and osteoinductivity. The release of the \(\hbox {Ca}^{2+}\) ions from these scaffolds is of great interest in light of the aforementioned properties. It can depend on a number of biophysicochemical phenomena such as dissolution, diffusion and degradation, which in turn depend on specific scaffold characteristics such as composition and morphology. Achieving an optimal release profile can be challenging when relying on traditional experimental work alone. Mathematical modelling can complement experimentation. In this study, the in vitro dissolution behaviour of four CaP-based scaffold types was investigated experimentally. Subsequently, a mechanistic finite element method model based on biophysicochemical phenomena and specific scaffold characteristics was developed to predict the experimentally observed behaviour. Before the model could be used for local \(\hbox {Ca}^{2+}\) ions release predictions, certain parameters such as dissolution constant (\(k_{\mathrm{dc}}\)) and degradation constant (\(k_\mathrm{sc}\)) for each type of scaffold were determined by calibrating the model to the in vitro dissolution data. The resulting model showed to yield release characteristics in satisfactory agreement with those observed experimentally. This suggests that the mathematical model can be used to investigate the local \(\hbox {Ca}^{2+}\) ions release from CaP-based scaffolds.

Keywords

Calcium phosphate (CaP)-based scaffold Dissolution Diffusion Degradation Mathematical model Finite element method (FEM) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Céline Smekens is gratefully acknowledged for her work as a master student on measuring the \(\hbox {Ca}^{2+}\) ions release using micro ion electrode. Bachelor students Antoine Delacroix and Simon Bruneau (ESEO, Angers, France) are gratefully acknowledged for their work on development of Morphing CiTy (ULg, Liege, Belgium). Varun Manhas and Yann Guyot are funded by Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS) Grant FRFC 2.4564.12. Greet Kerckhofs and Yoke Chin Chai are financed by the postdoctoral Grant of the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO/12R4315N and 1.5.172.13N-Interdisc.—http://www.fwo.be/en/). The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 279100. The microCT images have been generated on the X-ray computed tomography facilities of the Department of Materials Engineering of the KU Leuven, financed by the Hercules Foundation (Project AKUL 09/001: Micro- and nanoCT for the hierarchical analysis of materials). This work is part of Prometheus, the KU Leuven R&D Division of Skeletal Tissue Engineering (http://www.kuleuven.be/prometheus).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10237_2016_827_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (213 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 212 KB)
10237_2016_827_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (283 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (pdf 283 KB)

References

  1. Adachi T, Osako Y, Tanaka M, Hojo M, Hollister SJ (2006) Framework for optimal design of porous scaffold microstructure by computational simulation of bone regeneration. Biomaterials 27:3964–3972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arifin DY, Lee LY, Wang C-H (2006) Mathematical modeling and simulation of drug release from microspheres: implications to drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58:1274–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bianchi M et al (2014) Substrate geometry directs the in vitro mineralization of calcium phosphate ceramics. Acta Biomater 10:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bléry P et al (2014) Evaluation of new bone formation in irradiated areas using association of mesenchymal stem cells and total fresh bone marrow mixed with calcium phosphate scaffold. J Mater Sci Mater Med 25:2711–2720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohner M, Baumgart F (2004) Theoretical model to determine the effects of geometrical factors on the resorption of calcium phosphate bone substitutes. Biomaterials 25:3569–3582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brazel CS, Peppas NA (2000) Modeling of drug release from swellable polymers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 49:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne DP, Lacroix D, Planell JA, Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ (2007) Simulation of tissue differentiation in a scaffold as a function of porosity. Young’s modulus and dissolution rate: application of mechanobiological models in tissue engineering. Biomaterials 28:5544–5554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlier A, Chai YC, Moesen M, Theys T, Schrooten J, Van Oosterwyck H, Geris L (2011) Designing optimal calcium phosphate scaffold-cell combinations using an integrative model-based approach. Acta Biomater 7:3573–3585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chai YC et al (2012a) Current views on calcium phosphate osteogenicity and the translation into effective bone regeneration strategies. Acta Biomater 8:3876–3887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chai YC et al (2012b) Ectopic bone formation by 3D porous calcium phosphate-Ti6Al4V hybrids produced by perfusion electrodeposition. Biomaterials 33:4044–4058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chai YC et al (2012c) Mechanisms of ectopic bone formation by human osteoprogenitor cells on CaP biomaterial carriers. Biomaterials 33:3127–3142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charles-Harris M, Koch MA, Navarro M, Lacroix D, Engel E, Planell JA (2008) A PLA/calcium phosphate degradable composite material for bone tissue engineering: an in vitro study. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:1503–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danoux CB et al (2015) Elucidating the individual effects of calcium and phosphate ions on hMSCs by using composite materials. Acta Biomater 17:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dash S, Murthy PN, Nath L, Chowdhury P (2010) Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlled drug delivery systems. Acta Pol Pharm 67:217–223Google Scholar
  15. Fredenberg S, Wahlgren M, Reslow M, Axelsson A (2011) The mechanisms of drug release in poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based drug delivery systems—a review. Int J Pharm 415:34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frenning G (2003) Theoretical investigation of drug release from planar matrix systems: effects of a finite dissolution rate. J Control Release 92:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frenning G (2004) Theoretical analysis of the release of slowly dissolving drugs from spherical matrix systems. J Control Release 95:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frenning G, Strømme M (2003) Drug release modeled by dissolution, diffusion, and immobilization. Int J Pharm 250:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frenning G, Tunón Å, Alderborn G (2003) Modelling of drug release from coated granular pellets. J Control Release 92:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frenning G, Brohede U, Strømme M (2005) Finite element analysis of the release of slowly dissolving drugs from cylindrical matrix systems. J Control Release 107:320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gao P, Fagerness PE (1995) Diffusion in HPMC gels. I. Determination of drug and water diffusivity by pulsed-field-gradient spin-echo NMR. Pharm Res 12:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guyot Y, Papantoniou I, Chai YC, Van Bael S, Schrooten J, Geris L (2014) A computational model for cell/ECM growth on 3D surfaces using the level set method: a bone tissue engineering case study. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 13:1361–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hecht F (2012) New development in freefem++. J Numer Math 20:251–266MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Hong M-H, Kim S-M, Om J-Y, Kwon N, Lee Y-K (2014) Seeding cells on calcium phosphate scaffolds using hydrogel enhanced osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Ann Biomed Eng 42:1424–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horbett T, Waldburger J, Ratner B, Hoffman A (1988) Cell adhesion to a series of hydrophili-hydrophobic copolymers studies with a spinning disc apparatus. J Biomed Mater Res 22:383–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karadzic I, Vucic V, Jokanovic V, Debeljak-Martacic J, Markovic D, Petrovic S, Glibetic M (2015) Effects of novel hydroxyapatite-based 3D biomaterials on proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 103:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaunisto E, Tajarobi F, Abrahmsen-Alami S, Larsson A, Nilsson B, Axelsson A (2013) Mechanistic modelling of drug release from a polymer matrix using magnetic resonance microimaging. Eur J Pharm Sci 48:698–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanao RPF, Leeuwenburgh SC, Wolke JG, Jansen JA (2011) Bone response to fast-degrading, injectable calcium phosphate cements containing PLGA microparticles. Biomaterials 32:8839–8847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lao LL, Peppas NA, Boey FYC, Venkatraman SS (2011) Modeling of drug release from bulk-degrading polymers. Int J Pharm 418:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lobo SE, Glickman R, da Silva WN, Arinzeh TL, Kerkis I (2015) Response of stem cells from different origins to biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. Cell Tissue Res 361: 477–495Google Scholar
  31. Masaro L, Zhu X (1999) Physical models of diffusion for polymer solutions, gels and solids. Prog Polym Sci 24:731–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazón P, García-Bernal D, Meseguer-Olmo L, Cragnolini F, Piedad N (2015) Human mesenchymal stem cell viability, proliferation and differentiation potential in response to ceramic chemistry and surface roughness. Ceram Int 41:6631–6644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mezahi F, Oudadesse H, Harabi A, Lucas-Girot A, Le Gal Y, Chaair H, Cathelineau G (2009) Dissolution kinetic and structural behaviour of natural hydroxyapatite vs. thermal treatment. J Therm Anal Calorim 95:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nava MM, Raimondi MT, Pietrabissa R (2013) A multiphysics 3D model of tissue growth under interstitial perfusion in a tissue-engineering bioreactor. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 12:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polakovič M, Görner T, Gref R, Dellacherie E (1999) Lidocaine loaded biodegradable nanospheres: II. Modelling of drug release. J Control Release 60:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ribeiro AC, Barros MC, Teles AS, Valente AJ, Lobo VM, Sobral AJ, Esteso M (2008) Diffusion coefficients and electrical conductivities for calcium chloride aqueous solutions at 298.15 K and 310.15 K. Electrochimica Acta 54:192–196Google Scholar
  37. Roberts SJ, Geris L, Kerckhofs G, Desmet E, Schrooten J, Luyten FP (2011) The combined bone forming capacity of human periosteal derived cells and calcium phosphates. Biomaterials 32:4393–4405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shannon RT (1976) Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystallogr Sect A Cryst Phys Diffr Theor Gen Crystallogr 32:751–767Google Scholar
  39. Shih Y-RV et al (2014) Calcium phosphate-bearing matrices induce osteogenic differentiation of stem cells through adenosine signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:990–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siepmann J, Göpferich A (2001) Mathematical modeling of bioerodible, polymeric drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 48:229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siepmann J, Siepmann F (2008) Mathematical modeling of drug delivery. Int J Pharm 364:328–343CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Siepmann J, Peppas NA (2011) Higuchi equation: derivation, applications, use and misuse. Int J Pharm 418:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siepmann J, Siepmann F (2013) Mathematical modeling of drug dissolution. Int J Pharm 453:12–24CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Siepmann J, Kranz H, Bodmeier R, Peppas N (1999) HPMC-matrices for controlled drug delivery: a new model combining diffusion, swelling, and dissolution mechanisms and predicting the release kinetics. Pharm Res 16:1748–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snorradóttir BS, Jónsdóttir F, Sigurdsson ST, Thorsteinsson F, Másson M (2013) Numerical modelling and experimental investigation of drug release from layered silicone matrix systems. Eur J Pharm Sci 49:671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sonnaert M, Luyten FP, Schrooten J, Papantoniou I (2015) Bioreactor-based online recovery of human progenitor cells with uncompromised regenerative potential: a bone tissue engineering perspective. PloS ONE 10:e0136875Google Scholar
  47. Sun X, Kang Y, Bao J, Zhang Y, Yang Y, Zhou X (2013) Modeling vascularized bone regeneration within a porous biodegradable CaP scaffold loaded with growth factors. Biomaterials 34:4971–4981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu L, Ding J (2005) Effects of porosity and pore size on in vitro degradation of three-dimensional porous poly (D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 75:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Young M, Carroad P, Bell R (1980) Estimation of diffusion coefficients of proteins. Biotechnol Bioeng 22:047–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Varun Manhas
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yann Guyot
    • 1
    • 3
  • Greet Kerckhofs
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yoke Chin Chai
    • 3
    • 4
  • Liesbet Geris
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Biomechanics Research Unit, GIGA In Silico MedicineU. LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Biomechanics Section, Department of Mechanical EngineeringKU LeuvenHeverleeBelgium
  3. 3.Prometheus, Division of Skeletal Tissue Engineering LeuvenKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Tissue Engineering Unit, Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research CenterKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations