Processing and strengthening of 58S bioactive glass-infiltrated titania scaffolds

Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part A

Volumn 105, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 590-600

  Mesquita Guimaraes J ^a,b   Leite, M A ^a   Souza, J C M ^a,b   Henriques, B ^a,b   Silva, F S ^b   Hotza, D ^a   Boccaccini, A R ^c   Fredel, M C ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

bioactive glass; hybrid scaffolds; mechanical properties; titanium dioxide; zeta potential

Indexed keywords

CERAMIC MATERIALS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; HYBRID MATERIALS; MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; PORE SIZE; POROSITY; SCAFFOLDS (BIOLOGY); SUSPENSIONS (FLUIDS); TITANIUM DIOXIDE; ZETA POTENTIAL;

58S BIOACTIVE GLASS; CERAMIC SUSPENSIONS; DIFFERENT PORE SIZES; HIGH SOLID CONTENT; HYBRID SCAFFOLDS; MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR; PORE INTERCONNECTIVITY; RHEOLOGICAL STUDIES;

BIOACTIVE GLASS;

BIOCERAMICS; GLASS; TITANIUM DIOXIDE; BIOACTIVE GLASS 58S; TITANIUM;

ARTICLE; CELL VIABILITY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENSITY; FLOW KINETICS; HEAT TREATMENT; HEATING; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IONIC STRENGTH; PARTICLE SIZE; POLYMERIZATION; POROSITY; SURFACE CHARGE; SUSPENSION; TEMPERATURE; TIME; VISCOSITY; ZETA POTENTIAL; CHEMISTRY; MECHANICAL STRESS; PH; TISSUE SCAFFOLD;

GLASS; HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION; POROSITY; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TISSUE SCAFFOLDS; TITANIUM;

EID: 84999019272     PISSN: 15493296     EISSN: 15524965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35937     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Bhatt RA, Rozental TD. Bone graft substitutes. Hand Clin 2012;28:457–468.
2. Sutherland D, Bostrom M. Grafts and bone graft substitutes: Bone regeneration and repair: Biology and clinical applications. Totowa: Humana Press; 2005. p 133–156.
3. Yang S, Guo Q, Shores LS, Aly A, Ramakrishnan M, Kim GH, Lu Q, Su L, Elisseeff JH. Use of a chondroitin sulfate bioadhesive to enhance integration of bioglass particles for repairing critical-size bone defects. J Biomed Mater Res A 2015;103:235–242.
4. Dimitriou R, Jones E, McGonagle D, Giannoudis PV. Bone regeneration: Current concepts and future directions. BMC Med 2011;9:66.
5. Perez RA, Mestres G. Role of pore size and morphology in musculo-skeletal tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C 2016;61:922–939.
6. Hench LL, Pantano CG, Buscemi PJ, Greenspan DC. Analysis of bioglass fixation of hip prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res 1977;11:267–282.
7. Ducheyne P. Bioglass coatings and bioglass composites as implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1985;19:273–291.
8. Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2006;27:3413–3431.
9. Shadjou N, Hasanzadeh M. Bone tissue engineering using silica-based mesoporous nanobiomaterials: Recent progress. Mater Sci Eng C 2015;55:401–409.
10. Yi W, Hu X, Sun X, Ichim P, Suvorova A. Processing and properties of BioCeramic coatings onto 3D Ti-Mesh by DipCasting method. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2014;11:1030–1038.
11. 5 nanobioactive glass particles on Ti-6Al-4V alloy for biomedical applications. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2015;12:95–105. no.
12. Kaczmarek M, Jurczyk MU, Rubis B, Banaszak A, Kolecka A, Paszel A, Jurczyk K, Murias M, Sikora J, Jurczyk M. In vitro biocompatibility of Ti-45S5 bioglass nanocomposites and their scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A 2014;102:1316–1324.
13. Karp JM, Dalton PD, Shoichet MS, Cahn F. Scaffolds for tissue engineering. MRS Bull 2003;301–306.
14. Mohanty S, Sanger K, Heiskanen A, Trifol J, Szabo P, Dufva M, Emnéus J, Wolff A. Fabrication of scalable tissue engineering scaffolds with dual-pore microarchitecture by combining 3D printing and particle leaching. Mater Sci Eng C 2016;61:180–189.
15. Hing KA. Bioceramic bone graft substitutes: Influence of porosity and chemistry. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2005;2:184–199.
16. Loh QL, Choong C. Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: Role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng B Rev 2013;19:485–502.
17. Tiainen H, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE, Haugen HJ. Ultra-porous titanium oxide scaffold with high compressive strength. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2010;21:2783–2792.
18. Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 2000;21:2529–2543.
19. Mohamad Yunos D, Bretcanu O, Boccaccini AR. Polymer-bioceramic composites for tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci 2008;43:4433–4442.
20. Saiz E, Zimmermann EA, Lee JS, Wegst UGK, Tomsia AP. Perspectives on the role of nanotechnology in bone tissue engineering. Dental Mater 2013;29:103–115.
21. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 2005;26:5474–5491.
22. Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP. Bone Tissue Eng Recent Adv Challenges 2012;40:363–408.
23. Jones JR, Hench LL. Regeneration of trabecular bone using porous ceramics. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 2003;7:301–307.
24. O'Brien FFJ. Biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today 2011;14:88–95.
25. Sebdani MM, Fathi MH. Fabrication and characterization of hydroxyapatite-forsterite-bioactive glass composite nanopowder for biomedical applications. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2011;8:553–559.
26. Bellucci D, Cannillo V, Sola A. A new highly bioactive composite for bone tissue repair. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2012;9:455–467.
27. 2-foams: Characterization of a potential scaffold. J Eur Ceram Soc 2004;24:661–668.
28. 2 bone scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C 2012;32:1386–1393.
29. 2 bone scaffolds with improved compressive strength. J Eur Ceram Soc 2013;33:15–24. no.
30. Tiainen H, Verket A, Haugen HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Wohlfahrt JC. Dimensional ridge preservation with a novel highly porous TiO(2) scaffold: An experimental study in minipigs. Int J Biomater 2012;2012:851264.
31. Carter DR, Hayes WC. Bone compressive strength: The influence of density and strain rate. Science 1976;194:1174–1176. no.
32. 2 bone scaffolds in extraction sockets of minipigs. Bone 2012;50:S115.
33. Rahaman M, Day D, Bal BS, Fu Q. Bioactive glass in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 2011;7:2355–2373.
34. Gerhardt LC, Boccaccini AR. Bioactive glass and glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Materials 2010;3:3867–3910.
35. Jones JR. Review of bioactive glass and glass: From Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater 2012;9:4457–4486.
36. Kaur G, Pandey OP, Singh K, Homa D, Scott B, Pickrell G. A review of bioactive glasses: Their structure, properties, fabrication and apatite formation. J Biomed Mater Res A 2014;102:254–274.
37. Hench LL, Wheeler DL, Greenspan DC. Molecular control of bioactivity in sol-gel glasses. J Sol–Gel Sci Technol 1998;250:245–250.
38. Sepulveda P, Jones JR, Hench LL. In vitro dissolution of melt-derived 45S5 and sol–gel derived 58S bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;61:301–311.
39. 2) nanoparticles filled poly(D,L lactid acid) (PDLLA) matrix composites for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:1287–1298.
40. Baklouti S, Chartier T, Gault C, Baumard J. Young's modulus of dry-pressed ceramics: The effect of the binder. J Eur Ceram Soc 1999;19:1569–1574.
41. Deville S, Saiz E, Tomsia AP. Freeze casting of hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2006;27:5480–5489.
42. Tsetsekou A, Agrafiotis C, Leon I, Milias A. Optimization of the rheological properties of alumina slurries for ceramic processing applications Part II: Spray-drying. J Eur Ceram Soc 2001;21:493–506.
43. 3 and YSZ foams produced by replica. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2012;1–9.
44. 2 foams for porous radiant burners. J Mater Sci 2009;44:3466–3471.
45. 2 nanoparticles in aqueous suspension for coatings applications. J Nanomater 2012;1–10.
46. Sentein C, Guizard B, Giraud S, Yé C, Ténégal F. Nanoparticles synthesized by laser pyrolysis in aqueous suspensions. J Phys Conf Ser 2009;170:12013.
47. Fazio S, Guzmán J, Colomer MT, Salomoni A, Moreno R. Colloidal stability of nanosized titania aqueous suspensions. J Eur Ceram Soc 2008;28:2171–2176.
48. 2 nanopowders to obtain homogeneous nanostructured granules by spray-drying. J Eur Ceram Soc 2011;31:1413–1419.
49. Pereira RDV, Salmoria GV, De Moura MOC, Aragones Á, Fredel MC. Scaffolds of PDLLA/bioglass 58S produced via selective laser sintering. Mater Res 2014;17:33–38.
50. Bettelheim FA, Brown WH, Campbell MK, Farrell SO, Torres O. Introduction to General, Organic, and Biochemistry, 10th ed. Cengage Learning; 2009.
51. Hoffmann W, Schrader K. Dispersion analysis of spreadable processed cheese with low content of emulsifying salts by photocentrifugation. Int J Food Sci Technol 2015;50:950–957.
52. Jain V, Johnson R, Ganesh I, Saha BP, Mahajan YR. Effect of rubber encapsulation on the comparative mechanical behaviour of ceramic honeycomb and foam. 2003;347:109–122.
53. Hanaor DAH, Sorrell CC. Review of the anatase to rutile phase transformation. J Mater Sci 2011;46:855–874.
54. Botella RM, de IC CS. (España), Reología de suspensiones cerámicas. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2005.
55. Morris GE, Skinner WA, Self PG, Smart RSC. Surface chemistry and rheological behaviour of titania pigment suspensions. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Aspects 1999;155:27–41.
56. Boch P, Nièpce JC. Ceramic materials, ISTE, London, UK, 2007.
57. Zhu X, Jiang D, Tan S. The control of slurry rheology in the processing of reticulated porous ceramics. Mater Res Bull 2002;37:541–553.
58. Kanai H, Amari T. Negative thixotropy in ferric-oxide suspensions. Rheol Acta 1995;34:303–310.
59. Hadkar UB. Physical Pharmacy. Nirali Prakashan; 2007.
60. Sochi T. Single-phase flow of non-Newtonian fluids in porous media. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 2009;48:94.
61. Wan-Guo H, De-Jun S, Shu-Hua H, Chun-Guang Z, Guo-Ting W. Study on the thixotropy of aluminum magnesium hydroxide-Na-montmorillonite suspension. Colloid Polym Sci 1998;276:274–277.
62. Montanaro L, Jorand Y, Fantozzi G, Negro A. Ceramic foams by powder processing. J Eur Ceram Soc 1998;18:1339–1350.
63. 2 scaffolds—A correlation study between processing parameters, micro CT analysis and mechanical strength. J Eur Ceram Soc 2009;29:2773–2781.
64. Zhang Y, Yang M, Portney NG, Cui D, Budak G, Ozbay E, Ozkan M, Ozkan CS. Zeta potential: A surface electrical characteristic to probe the interaction of nanoparticles with normal and cancer human breast epithelial cells. Biomed Microdev 2008;10:321–328.
65. Berg JM, Romoser A, Banerjee N, Zebda R, Sayes CM. The relationship between pH and zeta potential of ∼30 nm metal oxide nanoparticle suspensions relevant to in vitro toxicological evaluations. Nanotoxicology 2009;3:276–283.
66. Ayala-Torres C, Hernández N, Galeano A, Novoa-Aponte L, Soto CY. Zeta potential as a measure of the surface charge of mycobacterial cells. Ann Microbiol 2014;64:1189–1195.
67. Ng W, Ting YP. Zeta potential of bacterial cells: Effect of wash buffers. Peer J Preprints 2016;2–3.
68. Bondar OV, Saifullina DV, Shakhmaeva II, Mavlyutova II, Abdullin TI. Monitoring of the zeta potential of human cells upon reduction in their viability and interaction with polymers. Acta Nat 2012;4:78–81.
69. Au KM, Chen M, Armes SP, Zheng N. Near-infrared light-triggered irreversible aggregation of poly(oligo(ethylene glycol) methacrylate)-stabilised polypyrrole nanoparticles under biologically relevant conditions. Chem Commun 2013;49:10525–10527.
70. Sakulkhu U, Mahmoudi M, Maurizi L, Salaklang J, Hofmann H. Protein corona composition of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles with various physico-chemical properties and coatings. Sci Rep 2014;4:5020.
71. Riddick TM. Control of colloid stability through zeta potential: With a closing chapter on its relationship to cardiovascular disease. Published for Zeta-Meter, Inc., by Livingston Pub. Co.; 1968.