AAPS PharmSciTech

, 20:104 | Cite as

Risedronate-Loaded Macroporous Gel Foam Enriched with Nanohydroxyapatite: Preparation, Characterization, and Osteogenic Activity Evaluation Using Saos-2 Cells

  • Nadia M. Morsi
  • Rehab Nabil ShammaEmail author
  • Nouran Osama Eladawy
  • Abdelfattah A. Abdelkhalek
Research Article


The application of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the field of orthopedic surgery has created a growing need for new injectable synthetic materials that can be used for bone grafting. In this work, novel injectable thermosensitive foam was developed by mixing nHAP powder with a thermosensitive polymer with foaming power (Pluronic F-127) and loaded with a water-soluble bisphosphonate drug (risedronate) to promote osteogenesis. The foam was able to retain the porous structure after injection and set through temperature change of PF-127 solution to form gel inside the body. The effect of different formulation parameters on the gelation time, porosity, foamability, injectability, and in vitro degradation in addition to drug release from the prepared foams were analyzed using a full factorial design. The addition of a co-polymer like methylcellulose or sodium alginate into the foam was also studied. Results showed that the prepared optimized thermosensitive foam was able to gel within 1 min at 37°C, and sustain the release of drug for 72 h. The optimized formulation was further tested for any interactions using DSC and IR, and revealed no interactions between the drug and the used excipients in the prepared foam. Furthermore, the ability of the pre-set foam to support osteoblastic-like Saos-2-cell proliferation and differentiation was assessed, and revealed superior function on promoting cellular proliferation as confirmed by fluorescence microscope compared to the plain drug solution. The activity of the foam treated cells was also assessed by measuring the alkaline phosphatase activity and calcium deposition, and confirmed that the cellular activity was greatly enhanced in foam treated cells compared to those treated with the plain drug solution only. The obtained results show that the prepared risedronate-loaded thermosensitive foam would represent a step forward in the design of new materials for minimally invasive bone regeneration.


risedronate nanohydroxyapatite pluronic F-127 gel foam osteogenic activity 



  1. 1.
    Studart AR, Gonzenbach UT, Tervoort E, Gauckler LJ. Processing routes to macroporous ceramics: a review. J Am Ceram Soc. 2006;89(6):1771–89.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tozzi G, de Mori A, Oliveira A, Roldo M. Composite hydrogels for bone regeneration. Materials. 2016;9(4):267.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Assaker R. Minimal access spinal technologies: state-of-the-art, indications, and techniques. Joint Bone Spine. 2004;71(6):459–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang W, Yeung KW. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: a review. Bioactive Mater. 2017;2(4):224–47.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Habib M, Baroud G, Gitzhofer F, Bohner M. Mechanisms underlying the limited injectability of hydraulic calcium phosphate paste. Acta Biomater. 2008;4(5):1465–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Constantz BR, et al. Skeletal repair by in situ formation of the mineral phase of bone. Science. 1995;267(5205):1796–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ginebra M-P, Traykova T, Planell JA. Calcium phosphate cements as bone drug delivery systems: a review. J Control Release. 2006;113(2):102–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu HH, Quinn JB, Takagi S, Chow LC. Synergistic reinforcement of in situ hardening calcium phosphate composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2004;25(6):1029–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ginebra MP, Delgado JA, Harr I, Almirall A, del Valle S, Planell JA. Factors affecting the structure and properties of an injectable self-setting calcium phosphate foam. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007;80(2):351–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Del Valle S, et al. In vivo evaluation of an injectable macroporous calcium phosphate cement. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18(2):353–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Groot AS, Scott DW. Immunogenicity of protein therapeutics. Trends Immunol. 2007;28(11):482–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altuntaş E, Yener G. Formulation and evaluation of thermoreversible in situ nasal gels containing mometasone furoate for allergic rhinitis. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2017;18(7):2673–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alexandridis P, Hatton TA. Poly (ethylene oxide) poly (propylene oxide) poly (ethylene oxide) block copolymer surfactants in aqueous solutions and at interfaces: thermodynamics, structure, dynamics, and modeling. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp. 1995;96(1–2):1–46.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdi SIH, Choi JY, Lee JS, Lim HJ, Lee C, Kim J, et al. In vivo study of a blended hydrogel composed of pluronic F-127-alginate-hyaluronic acid for its cell injection application. Tissue Eng Regener Med. 2012;9(1):1–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gan T, Zhang Y, Guan Y. In situ gelation of P (NIPAM-HEMA) microgel dispersion and its applications as injectable 3D cell scaffold. Biomacromolecules. 2009;10(6):1410–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim JH, Lee SB, Kim SJ, Lee YM. Rapid temperature/pH response of porous alginate-g-poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) hydrogels. Polymer. 2002;43(26):7549–58.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang Y, Wang X, Li Y, Lei M, du Y, Kennedy JF, et al. Production and characterisation of novel injectable chitosan/methylcellulose/salt blend hydrogels with potential application as tissue engineering scaffolds. Carbohydr Polym. 2010;82(3):833–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Talaat WM, Haider M, Kawas SA, Kandil NG, Harding DRK. Chitosan-based thermosensitive hydrogel for controlled drug delivery to the temporomandibular joint. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(3):735–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montufar E, et al. Foamed surfactant solution as a template for self-setting injectable hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(3):876–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang Y, Zhang X, Wu A, Xu H. An injectable nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HA)/glycol chitosan (G-CS)/hyaluronic acid (HyA) composite hydrogel for bone tissue engineering. RSC Adv. 2016;6(40):33529–36.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li F, Liu Y, Ding Y, Xie Q. A new injectable in situ forming hydroxyapatite and thermosensitive chitosan gel promoted by Na 2 CO 3. Soft Matter. 2014;10(13):2292–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leroux L, Hatim Z, Frèche M, Lacout JL. Effects of various adjuvants (lactic acid, glycerol, and chitosan) on the injectability of a calcium phosphate cement. Bone. 1999;25(2):31S–4S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shamma RN, Elkasabgy NA, Mahmoud AA, Gawdat SI, Kataia MM, Abdel Hamid MA. Design of novel injectable in-situ forming scaffolds for non-surgical treatment of periapical lesions: in-vitro and in-vivo evaluation. Int J Pharm. 2017;521(1):306–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paul S, Egbert JE, Walsh AW, Hoey MF. Pressure measurements during injection of corticosteroids. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1998;36(6):729–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumbhar D, Pokharkar VB. Engineering of a nanostructured lipid carrier for the poorly water-soluble drug, bicalutamide: physicochemical investigations. Colloids Surf A Physiochem. 2013;416:32–42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nafee N, Zewail M, Boraie N. Alendronate-loaded biodegradable smart hydrogel: a promisimg injectable depot formulation for osteoporosis. J Drug Target. 2017;26(7):563–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hansen MB, Nielsen SE, Berg K. Re-examination and further development of a precise and rapid dye method for measuring cell growth/cell kill. J Immunol Methods. 1989;119(2):203–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gohel A, McCarthy M-B, Gronowicz G. Estrogen prevents glucocorticoid-induced apoptosis in osteoblasts in vivo and in vitro. Endocrinology. 1999;140(11):5339–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kalpana B, Lakshmi PK. Transdermal permeation enhancement of Tolterodine Tartrate through invasomes and iontophoresis. Pharm Lett. 2013;5(6):119–26.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Quinten T, Gonnissen Y, Adriaens E, Beer TD, Cnudde V, Masschaele B, et al. Development of injection moulded matrix tablets based on mixtures of ethylcellulose and low-substituted hydroxypropylcellulose. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009;37(3–4):207–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Basalious EB, El-Sebaie W, El-Gazayerly O. Application of pharmaceutical QbD for enhancement of the solubility and dissolution of a class II BCS drug using polymeric surfactants and crystallization inhibitors: development of controlled-release tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2011;12(3):799–810.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lima DL, Calisto V, Esteves VI. Adsorption behavior of 17α-ethynylestradiol onto soils followed by fluorescence spectral deconvolution. Chemosphere. 2011;84(8):1072–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Talasaz AH, et al. In situ gel forming systems of poloxamer 407 and hydroxypropyl cellulose or hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose mixtures for controlled delivery of vancomycin. J Appl Polym Sci. 2008;109(4):2369–74.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    El-Gawad A, et al. Formulation and physical characterization of a novel sustained-release ophthalmic delivery system for Sparfloxacin: the effect of the biological environment. Ophthalmol Res Int J. 2013;1(1):1–22.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fakhari A, Corcoran M, Schwarz A. Thermogelling properties of purified poloxamer 407. Heliyon. 2017;3(8):e00390.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gioffredi E, Boffito M, Calzone S, Giannitelli SM, Rainer A, Trombetta M, et al. Pluronic F127 hydrogel characterization and biofabrication in cellularized constructs for tissue engineering applications. Procedia CIRP. 2016;49:125–32.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rarokar NR, Saoji SD, Khedekar PB. Investigation of effectiveness of some extensively used polymers on thermoreversible properties of Pluronic® tri-block copolymers. J Drug Delivery Sci Technol. 2018;44:220–30.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Unosson J, Montufar EB, Engqvist H, Ginebra MP, Persson C. Brushite foams—the effect of Tween® 80 and Pluronic® F-127 on foam porosity and mechanical properties. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016;104(1):67–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shimoyama T, Itoh K, Kobayashi M, Miyazaki S, D’Emanuele A, Attwood D. Oral liquid in situ gelling methylcellulose/alginate formulations for sustained drug delivery to dysphagic patients. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2012;38(8):952–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perut F, Montufar EB, Ciapetti G, Santin M, Salvage J, Traykova T, et al. Novel soybean/gelatine-based bioactive and injectable hydroxyapatite foam: material properties and cell response. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(4):1780–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hegge AB, Andersen T, Melvik JE, Kristensen S, Tønnesen HH. Evaluation of novel alginate foams as drug delivery systems in antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) of infected wounds—an in vitro study: studies on curcumin and curcuminoides XL. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(8):3499–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cervantes-Martínez A, Maldonado A. Foaming behaviour of polymer–surfactant solutions. J Phys Condens Matter. 2007;19(24):246101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rangabhatla ASL, Tantishaiyakul V, Oungbho K, Boonrat O. Fabrication of pluronic and methylcellulose for etidronate delivery and their application for osteogenesis. Int J Pharm. 2016;499(1–2):110–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raharitsifa N, Genovese DB, Ratti C. Characterization of apple juice foams for foam-mat drying prepared with egg white protein and methylcellulose. J Food Sci. 2006;71(3):E142–51.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ceccaldi C, Bushkalova R, Cussac D, Duployer B, Tenailleau C, Bourin P, et al. Elaboration and evaluation of alginate foam scaffolds for soft tissue engineering. Int J Pharm. 2017;524(1–2):433–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bakeri G, Ismail AF, Shariaty-Niassar M, Matsuura T. Effect of polymer concentration on the structure and performance of polyetherimide hollow fiber membranes. J Membr Sci. 2010;363(1–2):103–11.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tan R, Feng Q, Jin H, Li J, Yu X, She Z, et al. Structure and biocompatibility of an injectable bone regeneration composite. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2011;22(14):1861–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schütz K, Placht AM, Paul B, Brüggemeier S, Gelinsky M, Lode A. Three-dimensional plotting of a cell-laden alginate/methylcellulose blend: towards biofabrication of tissue engineering constructs with clinically relevant dimensions. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017;11(5):1574–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Witek L, Shi Y, Smay J. Controlling calcium and phosphate ion release of 3D printed bioactive ceramic scaffolds: an in vitro study. J Adv Ceram. 2017;6(2):157–64.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lin H-R, Sung K, Vong W-J. In situ gelling of alginate/pluronic solutions for ophthalmic delivery of pilocarpine. Biomacromolecules. 2004;5(6):2358–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Al-Sokanee ZN, et al. The drug release study of ceftriaxone from porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2009;10(3):772–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Balestrieri F, Magrì AD, Magrì AL, Marini D, Sacchini A. Application of differential scanning calorimetry to the study of drug-excipient compatibility. Thermochim Acta. 1996;285(2):337–45.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gong T, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Liu X, Troczynski T, et al. Osteogenic and anti-osteoporotic effects of risedronate-added calcium phosphate silicate cement. Biomed Mater. 2016;11(4):045002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Redman-Furey N, Dicks M, Bigalow-Kern A, Cambron RT, Lubey G, Lester C, et al. Structural and analytical characterization of three hydrates and an anhydrate form of risedronate. J Pharm Sci. 2005;94(4):893–911.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Elfalaky A, Hashem H, Mohamed T. Bone-like material, synthesis, optimization and characterization. Nanosci Nanoeng. 2014;2(1):10–6.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    El-Badry M, et al. Performance of poloxamer 407 as hydrophilic carrier on the binary mixtures with nimesulide. Farmacia. 2013;61(6):1137–50.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Soares J, et al. Thermal behavior of alginic acid and its sodium salt. Eclética Química. 2004;29(2):57–64.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Khajuria DK, Disha C, Vasireddi R, Razdan R, Mahapatra DR. Risedronate/zinc-hydroxyapatite based nanomedicine for osteoporosis. Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;63:78–87.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Errassifi F, Sarda S, Barroug A, Legrouri A, Sfihi H, Rey C. Infrared, Raman and NMR investigations of risedronate adsorption on nanocrystalline apatites. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2014;420:101–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Aprilliza, M. Characterization and properties of sodium alginate from brown algae used as an ecofriendly superabsorbent. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2017. IOP Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fathalla ZM, et al. Poloxamer-based thermoresponsive ketorolac tromethamine in situ gel preparations: Design, characterisation, toxicity and transcorneal permeation studies. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2017;114:119–34.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    El-Bagory IM, et al. Effect of gamma irradiation on pluronic gels for ocular delivery of ciprofloxacin: in vitro evaluation. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2010;4(9):4490–8.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stockert JC, Blázquez-Castro A, Cañete M, Horobin RW, Villanueva Á. MTT assay for cell viability: intracellular localization of the formazan product is in lipid droplets. Acta Histochem. 2012;114(8):785–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang H, Li Y, Zuo Y, Li J, Ma S, Cheng L. Biocompatibility and osteogenesis of biomimetic nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2007;28(22):3338–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Elkasabgy NA, Mahmoud AA, Shamma RN. Determination of cytocompatibility and osteogenesis properties of in situ forming collagen-based scaffolds loaded with bone synthesizing drug for bone tissue engineering. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater. 2017;67(8):494–500.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tang L, Thevenot P, Hu W. Surface chemistry influences implant biocompatibility. Curr Top Med Chem. 2008;8(4):270–80.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hunt NC, Grover LM. Cell encapsulation using biopolymer gels for regenerative medicine. Biotechnol Lett. 2010;32(6):733–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chang, H.-I. and Y. Wang, Cell responses to surface and architecture of tissue engineering scaffolds, in Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering-cells and biomaterials 2011, INTECH.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pleshko N, Boskey A, Mendelsohn R. Novel infrared spectroscopic method for the determination of crystallinity of hydroxyapatite minerals. Biophys J. 1991;60(4):786–93.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ma X, He Z, Han F, Zhong Z, Chen L, Li B. Preparation of collagen/hydroxyapatite/alendronate hybrid hydrogels as potential scaffolds for bone regeneration. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 2016;143:81–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cui J, Liang J, Wen Y, Sun X, Li T, Zhang G, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of chitosan/β-glycerol phosphate composite membrane for guided bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(9):2911–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Clarke B. Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(Supplement 3):S131–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jeong HM, Jin YH, Choi YH, Chung JO, Cho DH, Chung MY, et al. Risedronate increases osteoblastic differentiation and function through connexin43. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013;432(1):152–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutics and Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyCairo UniversityCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology of Supplementary General Science, Faculty of Oral and Dental MedicineFuture University in EgyptCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations