Porous Hydroxyapatite-Polyhydroxybutyrate Composites Fabricated by a Novel Method Via Centrifugation

  • Michael M. Porter
  • Steve Lee
  • Nuttapol Tanadchangsaeng
  • Matt J. Jaremko
  • Jian Yu
  • Marc Meyers
  • Joanna McKittrick
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

Porous hydroxyapatite-polyhydroxybutyrate (HA-PHB) composites were fabricated by infiltrating PHB micro-/nano-particles into rigid HA scaffolds via centrifugation, followed by subsequent heating at 175°C to melt the PHB into the scaffolds. HA scaffolds were obtained by heating trabecular bovine femur bone at 1,350°C to remove the organic and sinter the HA. PHB particles were recovered and purified from microbial cells by two different chemical methods, which either filled the apparent porosity of the scaffolds or coated the trabecular network of the scaffolds after heating. The mechanical properties, porosity, HA/PHB volume fractions and surface adhesion of the resulting HA-PHB composites were investigated and compared to the original HA scaffolds. The final porosities of the filled and coated composites were ~54% and ~67%, respectively. All of the HA-PHB composites showed a slight increase in strength with the addition of PHB. The filled composites showed no change in stiffness from the addition of PHB, while the coated composites showed an increase in stiffness over the original HA scaffolds from ~35 to ~105 MPa. The enhanced stiffness in the coated composites was due to strong interactions between its HA and PHB constituent phases. Very little inter-constituent adhesion was observed in the filled composites.

Keywords

Hydroxyapatite scaffold Polyhydroxybutyrate particle Bone implant Biomimetic Centrifugation 

References

  1. 1.
    Chen PY, McKittrick J (2011) Compressive mechanical properties of demineralized and deproteinized cancellous bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4(7):961–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novitskaya E et al (2011) Anisotropy in the compressive mechanical properties of bovine cortical bone and the mineral and protein constituents. Acta Biomater 7(8):3170–3177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Launey ME, Buehler MJ, Ritchie RO (2010) On the mechanistic origins of toughness in bone. Annu Rev Mater Res 40:25–53, Annual Reviews: Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonfield W (1988) Composites for bone-replacement. J Biomed Eng 10(6):522–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liao SS et al (2004) Hierarchically biomimetic bone scaffold materials: nano-HA/collagen/PLA composite. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 69B(2):158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Low KL et al (2010) Calcium phosphate-based composites as injectable bone substitute materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 94B(1):273–286Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pielichowska K, Blazewicz S (2010) Bioactive polymer/hydroxyapatite (nano) composites for bone tissue regeneration. In: Biopolymers: lignin, proteins, bioactive nanocomposites. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–207Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tenhuisen KS et al (1995) Formation and properties of a synthetic bone composite – hydroxyapatite-collagen. J Biomed Mater Res 29(7):803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azevedo MC et al (2003) Development and properties of polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite composite biomaterials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 14(2):103–107MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boeree NR et al (1993) Development of a degradable composite for orthopedic use – mechanical evaluation of an hydroxyapatite polyhydroxybutyrate composite-material. Biomaterials 14(10):793–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coskun S, Korkusuz F, Hasirci V (2005) Hydroxyapatite reinforced poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) based degradable composite bone plate. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 16(12):1485–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hao JY, Yuan ML, Deng XM (2002) Biodegradable and biocompatible nanocomposites of poly(epsilon-caprolactone) with hydroxyapatite nanocrystals: thermal and mechanical properties. J Appl Polym Sci 86(3):676–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hong ZK et al (2007) Composites of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) and the surface modified carbonated hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. J Biomed Mater Res A 81A(3):515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Misra SK et al (2006) Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)/inorganic phase composites for tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules 7(8):2249–2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neuendorf RE et al (2008) Adhesion between biodegradable polymers and hydroxyapatite: relevance to synthetic bone-like materials and tissue engineering scaffolds. Acta Biomater 4(5):1288–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russias J et al (2006) Fabrication and mechanical properties of PLA/HA composites: a study of in vitro degradation. Mater Sci Eng C-Biomim Supramol Sys 26(8):1289–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shishatskaya EI, Khlusov IA, Volova TG (2006) A hybrid PHB-hydroxyapatite composite for biomedical application: production, in vitro and in vivo investigation. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 17(5):481–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mygind T et al (2007) Mesenchymal stem cell ingrowth and differentiation on coralline hydroxyapatite scaffolds. Biomaterials 28(6):1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Azami M, Moztarzadeh F, Tahriri M (2010) Preparation, characterization and mechanical properties of controlled porous gelatin/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite through layer solvent casting combined with freeze-drying and lamination techniques. J Porous Mater 17(3):313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deville S, Saiz E, Tomsia AP (2006) Freeze casting of hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27(32):5480–5489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fu Q et al (2008) Freeze-cast hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. Biomed Mater 3(2):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramay HR, Zhang MQ (2003) Preparation of porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds by combination of the gel-casting and polymer sponge methods. Biomaterials 24(19):3293–3302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swain SK, Bhattacharyya S, Sarkar D (2011) Preparation of porous scaffold from hydroxyapatite powders. Mater Sci Eng C-Mater Biol Appl 31(6):1240–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang TY et al (2010) Hydroxyapatite scaffolds processed using a TBA-based freeze-gel casting/polymer sponge technique. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21(5):1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez-Vazquez FJ et al (2010) Improving the compressive strength of bioceramic robocast scaffolds by polymer infiltration. Acta Biomater 6(11):4361–4368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miao X et al (2005) Preparation and characterization of interpenetrating phased TCP/HA/PLGA composites. Mater Lett 59(29–30):4000–4005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peroglio M et al (2010) Mechanical properties and cytocompatibility of poly(epsilon-caprolactone)-infiltrated biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds with bimodal pore distribution. Acta Biomater 6(11):4369–4379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharifi S et al (2011) Hydroxyapatite scaffolds infiltrated with thermally crosslinked polycaprolactone fumarate and polycaprolactone itaconate. J Biomed Mater Res A 98A(2):257–267MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Launey ME et al (2009) Designing highly toughened hybrid composites through nature-inspired hierarchical complexity. Acta Mater 57(10):2919–2932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pezzotti G et al (2002) In situ polymerization into porous ceramics: a novel route to tough biomimetic materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 13(8):783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Elkasabi Y, Chen HY, Lahann J (2006) Multipotent polymer coatings based on chemical vapor deposition copolymerization. Adv Mater 18(12):1521–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen YG et al (1999) Recovery of poly-3-hydroxybutyrate from Alcaligenes eutrophus by surfactant-chelate aqueous system. Process Biochem 34(2):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hahn SK, Chang YK, Lee SY (1995) Recovery and characterization of poly(3-hydroxybutyric acid) synthesized in alcaligenes-eutrophus and recombinant escherichia-coli. Appl Environ Microbiol 61(1):34–39Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jacquel N et al (2008) Isolation and purification of bacterial poly (3-hydroxyalkanoates). Biochem Eng J 39(1):15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yu J, Plackett D, Chen LXL (2005) Kinetics and mechanism of the monomeric products from abiotic hydrolysis of poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate] under acidic and alkaline conditions. Polym Degrad Stab 89(2):289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Porter M, Yu J (2011) Crystallization kinetics of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) granules in different environmental conditions. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol 2(3):301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van de Velde K, Kiekens P (2002) Biopolymers: overview of several properties and consequences on their applications. Polym Test 21(4):433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Porter M, Yu J (2011) Monitoring the in situ crystallization of native biopolyester granules in Ralstonia eutropha via infrared spectroscopy. J Microbiol Methods 87(1):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1999) Cellular solids: structure and properties, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael M. Porter
    • 1
  • Steve Lee
    • 1
  • Nuttapol Tanadchangsaeng
    • 2
  • Matt J. Jaremko
    • 2
  • Jian Yu
    • 2
  • Marc Meyers
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joanna McKittrick
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Materials Science and Engineering ProgramUniversity of California, San DiegoLa Jolla, San DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Hawaii Natural Energy InstituteUniversity of Hawaii at MānoaHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of California, San DiegoLa Jolla, San DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations