Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 2362–2374 | Cite as

In vitro degradation and bioactivity of composite poly-l-lactic (PLLA)/bioactive glass (BG) scaffolds: comparison of 45S5 and 1393BG compositions

  • Gioacchino Conoscenti
  • Francesco Carfì Pavia
  • Francesca Elisa Ciraldo
  • Liliana Liverani
  • Valerio Brucato
  • Vincenzo La Carrubba
  • Aldo R. Boccaccini
Biomaterials

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of two bioglass (BG) compositions 45S5 and 1393 in poly-l-lactic composite scaffolds in terms of morphology, mechanical properties, biodegradation, water uptake and bioactivity. The scaffolds were produced via thermally induced phase separation starting from a ternary polymer solution (polymer/solvent/non-solvent). Furthermore, different BG to polymer ratios have been selected (1, 2.5, 5% wt/wt) to evaluate the effect of the amount of filler on the composite structure. Results show that the addition of 1393BG does not affect the scaffold morphology, whereas the 45S5BG at the highest amount tends to appreciably modify the scaffold architecture interacting with the phase separation process. Bioactivity tests confirmed the formation of a hydroxycarbonateapatite-layer in both types of BGs (detected via scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffractometry and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy). Overall, the results showed that 1393BG composition affects the experimental preparation protocol to a minimal extent thus allowing a better control of the scaffold’s morphology compared to 45S5BG.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR) (PRIN prot. 20089CWS4C-005).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sun F, Zhou H, Lee J (2011) Various preparation methods of highly porous hydroxyapatite/polymer nanoscale biocomposites for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 7:3813–3828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin YM, Boccaccini AR, Polak JM et al (2006) Biocompatibility of poly-dl-lactic acid (PDLLA) for lung tissue engineering. J Biomater Appl 21:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weigel T, Schinkel G, Lendlein A (2006) Design and preparation of polymeric scaffolds for tissue engineering. Expert Rev Med Devices 3:835–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu YS, Huang QL, Kienzle A et al (2014) In vitro degradation of porous PLLA/pearl powder composite scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 38:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR (2006) Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27:3413–3431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones JR (2015) Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater 23:S53–S82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baino F, Fiorilli S, Vitale-Brovarone C (2016) Bioactive glass-based materials with hierarchical porosity for medical applications: review of recent advances. Acta Biomater 42:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montazerian M, Dutra Zanotto E (2016) History and trends of bioactive glass-ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 104:1231–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verrier S, Blaker JJ, Maquet V et al (2004) PDLLA/Bioglass® composites for soft-tissue and hard-tissue engineering: an in vitro cell biology assessment. Biomaterials 25:3013–3021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Durgalakshmi D, Balakumar S (2015) Analysis of solvent induced porous PMMA-bioglass monoliths by the phase separation method–mechanical and in vitro biocompatible studies. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17:1247–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryszkowska JL, Auguścik M, Sheikh A, Boccaccini AR (2010) Biodegradable polyurethane composite scaffolds containing bioglass for bone tissue engineering. Compos Sci Technol 70:1894–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hench LL (2015) Opening paper 2015-some comments on bioglass: four eras of discovery and development. Biomed Glas 1:1–11Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang W, Day DE, Kittiratanapiboon K, Rahaman MN (2006) Kinetics and mechanisms of the conversion of silicate (45S5), borate, and borosilicate glasses to hydroxyapatite in dilute phosphate solutions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17:583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahaman MN, Day DE, Sonny Bal B et al (2011) Bioactive glass in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 7:2355–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bi L, Jung S, Day D et al (2012) Evaluation of bone regeneration, angiogenesis, and hydroxyapatite conversion in critical-sized rat calvarial defects implanted with bioactive glass scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 100 A:3267–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noh D-YY, An Y-HH, Jo I-HH et al (2016) Synthesis of nanofibrous gelatin/silica bioglass composite microspheres using emulsion coupled with thermally induced phase separation. Mater Sci Eng C 62:678–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niu Y, Guo L, Liu J et al (2015) Bioactive and degradable scaffolds of the mesoporous bioglass and poly(l-lactide) composite for bone tissue regeneration. J Mater Chem B 3:2962–2970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vert M, Li SM, Spenlehauer G, Guerin P (1992) Bioresorbability and biocompatibility of aliphatic polyesters. J Mater Sci Mater Med 3:432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen Y, Mak A, Wang M et al (2006) PLLA scaffolds with biomimetic apatite coating and biomimetic apatite/collagen composite coating to enhance osteoblast-like cells attachment and activity. Surf Coat Technol 201:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu F, Wei J, Liu C et al (2012) Fabrication and properties of porous scaffold of zein/PCL biocomposite for bone tissue engineering. Compos Part B Eng 43:2192–2197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carfì Pavia F, La Carrubba V, Brucato V et al (2009) Tuning of biodegradation rate of PLLA scaffolds via blending with PLA. Int J Mater Form 2:713–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conoscenti G, Schneider T, Stoelzel K et al (2017) PLLA scaffolds produced by thermally induced phase separation (TIPS) allow human chondrocyte growth and extracellular matrix formation dependent on pore size. Mater Sci Eng C 80:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maquet V, Boccaccini AR, Pravata L et al (2003) Preparation, characterization, and in vitro degradation of bioresorbable and bioactive composites based on Bioglass(R)-filled polylactide foams. Biomed Mater Res A 66A:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maquet V, Boccaccini AR, Pravata L et al (2004) Porous poly(alpha-hydroxyacid)/Bioglass composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. I: preparation and in vitro characterisation. Biomaterials 25:4185–4194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boccaccini AR, Maquet V (2003) Bioresorbable and bioactive polymer/Bioglass® composites with tailored pore structure for tissue engineering applications. Compos Sci Technol 63:2417–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akbarzadeh R, Yousefi A-M (2014) Effects of processing parameters in thermally induced phase separation technique on porous architecture of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 102:1304–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mannella GA, Carfì Pavia F, Conoscenti G et al (2014) Evidence of mechanisms occurring in thermally induced phase separation of polymeric systems. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 52:979–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghersi G, Carfì Pavia F, Conoscenti G et al (2016) PLLA Scaffold via TIPS for bone tissue engineering. Chem Eng Trans 49:301–306Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoppe A, Meszaros R, Stähli C et al (2013) In vitro reactivity of Cu doped 45S5 Bioglass® derived scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B 1:5659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoppe A, Jokic B, Janackovic D et al (2014) Cobalt-releasing 1393 bioactive glass-derived scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:2865–2877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hua FJ, Park TG, Lee DS (2003) A facile preparation of highly interconnected macroporous poly(d, l-lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) scaffolds by liquid-liquid phase separation of a PLGA-dioxane-water ternary system. Polymer (Guildf) 44:1911–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hua FJ, Kim GE, Lee JD et al (2002) Macroporous poly(l-lactide) scaffold 1. Preparation of a macroporous scaffold by liquid–liquid phase separation of a PLLA–dioxane–water system. J Biomed Mater Res 63:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carfi Pavia F, La Carrubba V, Brucato V (2012) Morphology and thermal properties of foams prepared via thermally induced phase separation based on polylactic acid blends. J Cell Plast 48:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gong Y, Ma Z, Gao C et al (2006) Specially elaborated thermally induced phase separation to fabricate poly(l-lactic acid) scaffolds with ultra large pores and good interconnectivity. J Appl Polym Sci 101:3336–3342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sepulveda P, Jones RJ, Hench LL (2001) Characterization of melt-derived 45S5 and sol–gel–derived 58S bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res 58:734–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ho ST, Hutmacher DW (2006) A comparison of micro CT with other techniques used in the characterization of scaffolds. Biomaterials 27:1362–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang X, Thomas V, Vohra YK (2009) In Vitro biodegradation of designed tubular scaffolds of electrospun protein/polyglyconate blend fibers. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 89:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H (2006) How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity. Biomaterials 27:2907–2915. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cerruti M, Greenspan D, Powers K (2005) Effect of pH and ionic strength on the reactivity of Bioglass 45S5. Biomaterials 26:1665–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maçon ALB, Kim TB, Valliant EM et al (2015) A unified in vitro evaluation for apatite-forming ability of bioactive glasses and their variants. J Mater Sci Mater Med 26:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bai C, Franchin G, Elsayed H, et al. (2017) High-porosity geopolymer foams with tailored porosity for thermal insulation and wastewater treatment. J Mater Res 32:3251–3259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang Y, Rodrigue D, Ait-Kadi A (2003) High-density polyethylene foams. I. Polymer and foam characterization. J Appl Polym Sci 90:2111–2119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Blaker JJ, Nazhat SN, Maquet V, Boccaccini AR (2011) Long-term in vitro degradation of PDLLA/Bioglass bone scaffolds in acellular simulated body fluid. Acta Biomater 7:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mi HY, Jing X, Salick MR et al (2014) Morphology, mechanical properties, and mineralization of rigid thermoplastic polyurethane/hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue applications: effects of fabrication approaches and hydroxyapatite size. J Mater Sci 49:2324–2337. doi: 10.1007/s10853-013-7931-3sss CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lim JI, Park HK (2012) Fabrication of macroporous chitosan/poly(l-lactide) hybrid scaffolds by sodium acetate particulate-leaching method. J Porous Mater 19:383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Krikorian V, Pochan D (2005) Crystallization behavior of poly (l-lactic acid) nanocomposites: nucleation and growth probed by infrared spectroscopy. Macromolecules 38:6520–6527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ji L, Wang W, Jin D et al (2015) In vitro bioactivity and mechanical properties of bioactive glass nanoparticles/polycaprolactone composites. Mater Sci Eng C 46:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhou S, Zheng X, Yu X et al (2007) Hydrogen Bonding Interaction of Poly(d, l-lactide)/hydroxyapatite Nanocomposites. Chem Mater 19:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blaker JJ, Maquet V, Jérôme R et al (2005) Mechanical properties of highly porous PDLLA/Bioglass® composite foams as scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 1:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mannella GA, Conoscenti G, Carfì Pavia F et al (2015) Preparation of polymeric foams with a pore size gradient via Thermally Induced Phase Separation (TIPS). Mater Lett 160:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    El-Kady AM, Saad EA, El-Hady BMA, Farag MM (2010) Synthesis of silicate glass/poly(l-lactide) composite scaffolds by freeze-extraction technique: characterization and in vitro bioactivity evaluation. Ceram Int 36:995–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gerhardt LC, Widdows KL, Erol MM et al (2011) The pro-angiogenic properties of multi-functional bioactive glass composite scaffolds. Biomaterials 32:4096–4108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Environmental, Aerospace and Materials Engineering (DICAM)University of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Institute of BiomaterialsUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  3. 3.ATeN Center - CHABUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations