Advertisement

Calcium Phosphate Foams: Potential Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Modeling in Three Dimensions

  • Edgar B. MontufarEmail author
  • Lucy Vojtova
  • Ladislav Celko
  • Maria-Pau Ginebra
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1612)

Abstract

The present method describes the procedure to fabricate calcium phosphate foams with suitable open porosity, pore size, and composition to perform three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures with the objective to simulate the bone tissue microenvironment in vitro. Foams with two compositions but equivalent porosity can be fabricated. On the one hand, hydroxyapatite foams obtained by hydrolysis at 37 °C, with microstructure that mimics the small crystal size of the mineral component of bones, and on the other hand, beta tricalcium phosphate foams with polygonal grains obtained by sintering at 1100 °C. In the first part of the chapter the calcium phosphate foams are briefly described. Afterwards, the foaming process is described in detail, including alternatives to overcome processing problems than can arise. Finally, insights are provided on how to perform 3D cell cultures using the calcium phosphate foams as substrates.

Key words

Calcium phosphate foam Hydroxyapatite Tricalcium phosphate Bone model Cell culture Three-dimensional Osteoblast Tissue engineering Scaffold 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie and it is cofinanced by the South Moravian Region under grant agreement no. 665860. We also thank the Spanish Government for financial support through the Project MAT2015-65601-R, co-funded by the EU through European Regional Development Funds. Support for the research of MPG was received through the “ICREA Academia” award for excellence in research, funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya. The project CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601) was supported from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under the National Sustainability Programme II.

References

  1. 1.
    Ginebra MP, Montufar EB (2014) Injectable biomedical foams for bone regeneration. In: Netti P (ed) Biomedical foams for tissue engineering applications, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kovtun A, Goeckelmann MJ, Niclas AA et al (2015) In vivo performance of novel soybean/gelatin-based bioactive and injectable hydroxyapatite foams. Acta Biomater 12:242–249CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montufar EB, Traykova T, Gil C et al (2010) Foamed surfactant solution as a template for self-setting injectable hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 6:876–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ginebra MP, Delgado JA, Harr I et al (2007) Factors affecting the structure and properties of an injectable self-setting calcium phosphate foam. J Biomed Mater Res 80A:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montufar EB, Traykova T, Schacht E et al (2010) Self-hardening calcium deficient hydroxyapatite/gelatine foams for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21:863–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montufar EB, Traykova T, Planell JA et al (2011) Comparison of a low molecular weight and a macromolecular surfactant as foamingagents for injectable self setting hydroxyapatite foams: polysorbate 80 versus gelatin. Mater Sci Eng C 31:1498–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perut F, Montufar EB, Ciapetti G et al (2011) Novel soybean/gelatine-based bioactive and injectable hydroxyapatite foam: material properties and cell response. Acta Biomater 7:1780–1787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engstrand J, Montufar EB, Engqvist H et al (2016) Brushite foams - the effect of tween® 80 and Pluronic® F-127 on foam porosity and mechanical properties. J Biomed Mater Res Part B 104B:67–77Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Montufar EB, Gil C, Traykova T et al (2008) Foamed beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds. Key Eng Mater 361–363:323–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    LeGeros RZ, LeGeros JP (2003) Calcium phosphate bioceramics: past, present and future. Key Eng Mater 240-242:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohner M (2000) Calcium orthophosphates in medicine: from ceramics to calcium phosphate cements. Injury 31:D37–D47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Espanol M, Perez RA, Montufar EB et al (2009) Intrinsic porosity of calcium phosphate cements and its significance for drug delivery and tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater 5:2752–2762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ginebra MP, Canal C, Espanol M et al (2012) Calcium phosphate cements as drug delivery materials. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:1090–1110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koch MA, Vrij EJ, Engel E et al (2010) Perfusion cell seeding on large porous PLA/calcium phosphate composite scaffolds in a perfusion bioreactor system under varying perfusion parameters. J Biomed Mater Res A 95A:1011–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gómez-Martínez M (2011) Cultivo de células mesenquimales de rata sobre espumas de hidroxiapatita mediante bioreactor de perfusion. Dissertation, Technical University of CataloniaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carrodeguas RG, De Aza S (2011) α-tricalcium phosphate: synthesis, properties and biomedical applications. Acta Biomater 7:3536–3546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montufar EB, Maazouz Y, Ginebra MP (2013) Relevance of the setting reaction to the injectability of tricalcium phosphate pastes. Acta Biomater 9:6188–6198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hesaraki S, Nazarian H, Pourbaghi-Masouleh M et al (2014) Comparative study of mesenchymal stem cells osteogenic differentiation on low-temperature biomineralized nanocrystalline carbonated hydroxyapatite and sintered hydroxyapatite. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 102:108–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engel E, Del Valle S, Aparicio C et al (2008) Discerning the role of topography and ion exchange in cell response of bioactive tissue engineering scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 4:1341–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chou YF, Huang W, Dunn JCY et al (2005) The effect of biomimetic apatite structure on osteoblast viability, proliferation, and gene expression. Biomaterials 26:285–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sadowska JM, Guillem-Marti J, Montufar EB, et al (2017) Biomimetic versus sintered calcium phosphates: the in vitro behavior of osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Engineering Part A, ahead of print. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2016.0406.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edgar B. Montufar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lucy Vojtova
    • 1
  • Ladislav Celko
    • 1
  • Maria-Pau Ginebra
    • 2
  1. 1.CEITEC - Central European Institute of TechnologyBrno University of TechnologyBrno 612 00Czech Republic
  2. 2.Biomaterials, Biomechanics and Tissue Engineering Group, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgical EngineeringTechnical University of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations