Millions of people require bone injury treatment and there have been many methods suggested for the stabilization of bone fractures. The need for the development of new methods is obvious since current stabilization methods are inadequate. Here, we described the development of polyurethane-based bone adhesives composites containing β-tricalcium phosphate ceramics in different sizes and ratios. To characterize the proposed materials, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, hydrogen-nuclear magnetic resonance, differential scanning calorimetry analyses together with scanning electron microscopy observations, and micro-computerized tomography imaging were examined. Furthermore, in vitro performance of the produced materials was tested by using MG63 human osteosarcoma cell line, and an ex vivo modeling study was conducted to test the mechanical performance of resulting materials using bovine rib bone. All materials were exhibited high porosity (above 90%) and homogeneous distribution of ceramic particles. Polyurethane scaffolds containing 40% (w/w) 1–2 mm β-tricalcium phosphate were shown the highest compressive strength as 1.34 ± 0.10 MPa. In addition, 85.75% cell viability was recorded according to the cytotoxicity analysis and also the cell proliferation was found highest in the same group. Taken into account the obtained results, the prepared polyurethane-based bone adhesive materials containing ceramics has a great potential to transform into a final product and meet a clinically significant medical need.
Ortiz RuizAJVicenteACamacho AlonsoF, et al.A new use for self-etching resin adhesives: cementing bone fragments. J Dent2010; 38: 750–756.
2.
JoSHSohnJS. Biomimetic adhesive materials containing cyanoacryl group for medical application. Molecules2014; 19: 16779–16793.
3.
DonkerwolckeMBurnyFMusterD. Tissues and bone adhesives—historical aspects. Biomaterials1998; 19: 1461–1466.
4.
HeissCKrausRSchluckebierD, et al.Bone adhesives in trauma and orthopedic surgery. Eur J Trauma2006; 32: 141–148.
5.
KandalamUBouvierAJCasasSB, et al.Novel bone adhesives: a comparison of bond strengths in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 42: 1054–1059.
6.
KuehnKEgeWGoppU. Acrylic bone cements: composition and properties. Orthop Clin North Am2005; 36: 17–28.
7.
PascualGSotomayorSRodríguezM, et al.Cytotoxicity of cyanoacrylate-based tissue adhesives and short-term preclinical in vivo biocompatibility in abdominal hernia repair. PLoS One2016; 11: e0157920–e0157920.
8.
UscateguiYLDíazLEValeroMF. Biomedical applications of polyurethanes. Quim Nova2018; 41: 434–445.
9.
WaselauMSamiiVFWeisbrodeSE, et al.Effects of a magnesium adhesive cement on bone stability and healing following a metatarsal osteotomy in horses. Am J Vet Res2007; 68: 370–378.
10.
DuncanRVicentMJ. Polymer therapeutics-prospects for 21st century: the end of the beginning. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2013; 65: 60–70.
11.
FarrarDF. Bone adhesives for trauma surgery: a review of challenges and developments. Int J Adhes Adhes2012; 33: 89–97.
12.
RyouMThompsonCC. Tissue adhesives: a review. Tech Gastrointest Endosc2006; 8: 33–37.
13.
BurkeSARitter-JonesMLeeBP, et al.Thermal gelation and tissue adhesion of biomimetic hydrogels. Biomed Mater2007; 2: 203–203.
14.
ShaoHBachusKNStewartRJ. A water-borne adhesive modeled after the sandcastle glue of P. californica. Macromol Biosci2009; 9: 464–471.
15.
Ferreira P, Gil M and Alves P. Biomedical polyurethanes-based materials. In: Polyurethane: Properties, Structure and Applications. New York: Nova Publishers, 2013, pp. 1–25.
MarzecMKucińska-LipkaJKalaszczyńskaI, et al.Development of polyurethanes for bone repair. Mater Sci Eng C2017; 80: 736–747.
23.
MeskinfamMBertoldiSAlbaneseN, et al.Polyurethane foam/nano hydroxyapatite composite as a suitable scaffold for bone tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C2018; 82: 130–140.
24.
WongWYAhmad FauziMNOthmanR. Sintering of beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold using polyurethane template. Key Eng Mater2016; 694: 94–98.
25.
SzczepańczykPPielichowskaKChłopekJ. Polyurethane composite foams with β-tricalcium phosphate for biomedical applications. J Reinf Plast Compos2015; 34: 1856–1870.
26.
YoshiiTDumasJEOkawaA, et al.Synthesis, characterization of calcium phosphates/polyurethane composites for weight-bearing implants. J Biomed Mater Res – Part B Appl Biomater2012; 100: 32–40.
27.
GiannitelliSMBasoliFMozeticP, et al.Graded porous polyurethane foam: a potential scaffold for oro-maxillary bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C2015; 51: 329–335.
28.
Barbucci R, Casolaro M and Magnani A. Characterization of biomaterial surfaces: ATR-FTIR, potentiometric and calorimetric analysis. Clin Mater 1992; 11: 37–51.
29.
MeskinfamMBertoldiSAlbaneseN, et al.Polyurethane foam/nano hydroxyapatite composite as a suitable scaffold for bone tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C2018; 82: 130–140.
30.
MiHYSalickMRJingX, et al.Characterization of thermoplastic polyurethane/polylactic acid (TPU/PLA) tissue engineering scaffolds fabricated by microcellular injection molding. Mater Sci Eng C2013; 33: 4767–4776.
31.
BarrioniBRDe CarvalhoSMOréficeRL, et al.Synthesis and characterization of biodegradable polyurethane films based on HDI with hydrolyzable crosslinked bonds and a homogeneous structure for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C2015; 52: 22–30.
32.
GottliebHEKotlyarVNudelmanA. NMR chemical shifts of common laboratory solvents as trace impurities. J Org Chem1997; 62: 7512–7515.
D’ArlasBFRuedaLDe La CabaK, et al.Microdomain composition and properties differences of biodegradable polyurethanes based on MDI and HDI. Polym Eng Sci2008; 48: 519–529.
35.
DongZLiYZouQ. Degradation and biocompatibility of porous nano-hydroxyapatite/polyurethane composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Appl Surf Sci2009; 255: 6087–6091.
36.
AsefnejadABehnamghaderAKhorasaniMT, et al.Polyurethane/fluor-hydroxyapatite nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Part I: morphological, physical, and mechanical characterization. Int J Nanomed2011; 6: 93–93.
37.
GornaKGogolewskiS. Preparation, degradation, and calcification of biodegradable polyurethane foams for bone graft substitutes. J Biomed Mater Res – Part A2003; 67: 813–827.
38.
SchreaderKJBayerISMilnerDJ, et al.A polyurethane-based nanocomposite biocompatible bone adhesive. J Appl Polym Sci2013; 127: 4974–4982.
39.
Cedano F, Ayala S, Caicedo M, et al. Formulation, preparation and characterization of a bone adhesive. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Pan American Health Care Exchanges (PAHCE), Medellin, Colombia, 29 April–4 May 2013. New York: IEEE Xplore. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp (2013, accessed 18 November 2019).
40.
LeTTVoHVWebbLX. Investigation of Kryptonite™ bone cement in hybrid screw configurations of locking plate humeral midshaft fixation: a study of surrogate bone model. J Orthop2016; 13: 157–161.
41.
EbrahimiMPripatnanontPMonmaturapojN, et al.Fabrication and characterization of novel nano hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds in three different composition ratios. J Biomed Mater Res – Part A2012; 100: 2260–2268.
ZhangJSunLLuoX, et al.Cells responding to surface structure of calcium phosphate ceramics for bone regeneration. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2017; 11: 3273–3283.
44.
XidakiDAgrafiotiPDiomatariD, et al.Synthesis of hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate and biphasic calcium phosphate particles to act as local delivery carriers of curcumin: loading, release and in vitro studies. Mater (Basel, Switzerland)2018; 11: 595–595.
45.
TevlekAHosseinianPOgutcuC, et al.Bi-layered constructs of poly(glycerol-sebacate)-β-tricalcium phosphate for bone-soft tissue interface applications. Mater Sci Eng C2017; 72: 316–324.
46.
GornaKGogolewskiS. Biodegradable porous polyurethane scaffolds for tissue repair and regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res – Part A2006; 79: 128–138.
47.
BonzaniICAdhikariRHoushyarS, et al.Synthesis of two-component injectable polyurethanes for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2007; 28: 423–433.
48.
TanGKayaMTevlekA, et al.Antitumor activity of chitosan from mayfly with comparison to commercially available low, medium and high molecular weight chitosans. Vitr Cell Dev Biol – Anim2018; 54: 366–374.
49.
ChanBPLeongKW. Scaffolding in tissue engineering: general approaches and tissue-specific considerations. Eur Spine J2008; 17: 467–479.
50.
SolchagaLATognanaEPenickK, et al.A rapid seeding technique for the assembly of large cell/scaffold composite constructs. Tissue Eng2006; 12: 1851–1863.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
