Bone disorders and fractures affect millions of people worldwide. In critical situations, proper healing may not happen which may lead to non-union fractures. Consequently, the development of new clinical approaches is necessary. In this context, the present work developed bioglass/collagen/magnesium composites in order to mimic natural bone, toward the enhancement of material mechanical properties, but keeping bioactivity and performance of bioglass and collagen. So, the aim of this investigation was to explore the biological outcomes of bioglass/collagen/magnesium composites over bone repair, using tibial defect in Wistar rats. For this purpose, histopathological, morphometrical and immunohistochemical analyses, as well as mechanical test, were performed after 15 and 45 days of the composites implantation in rats. Histopathological assessment indicated that the biocompatible composites degraded over time, leading to a progressive new bone formation from the border to the core of the defect. Immunohistochemistry showed that all groups presented runx-2 and Rank-L immunostaining, with improved runx-2 labeling for bioglass/magnesium compared to plain bioglass 45 days post-implantation. Mechanical tests of the tibiae indicated good mechanical properties of these Mg-based materials, but no statistical differences among groups were found. Additional studies should be done to confirm the outcomes of bioglass/collagen/magnesium on bone restoration, using different animal models and new balanced amounts of Mg (3 wt%< Mg < 5 wt%), as well as compromised, long-term and critical bone defect conditions.
TsiridisEUpadhyayNGiannoudisP.Molecular aspects of fracture healing: which are the important molecules?Injury2007;
38: S11–S25.
2.
WangHHHsuYHChangMS.IL-20 bone diseases involvement and therapeutic target potential. J Biomed Sci2018;
25: 38.
3.
SchindelerAMcDonaldMMBokkoP, et al.
Bone remodeling during fracture repair: the cellular picture. Semin Cell Dev Biol2008;
19: 459–466.
4.
EgawaSMiuraSYokoyamaH, et al.
Growth and differentiation of a long bone in limb development, repair and regeneration. Dev Growth Differ2014;
56: 410–424.
5.
CaloriGMMazzaELMazzolaS, et al.
Non-unions. CCMBM2017;
14: 186–188.
6.
CaloriGMAlbisettiWAgusA, et al.
Risk factors contributing to fracture non-unions. Injury2007;
38: S11–S18.
7.
WieseAPapeHC.Bone defects caused by high-energy injuries, bone loss, infected nonunions, and nonunions. Orthoped Clin N Am2010;
41: 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.003
8.
OryanAMonazzahSBigham-SadeghA.Bone injury and fracture healing biology. Biomed Environ Sci2015;
28: 5–71.
9.
LiYChenSKLiL, et al.
Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials. J Orthopaed Transl2015;
3: 95–104.
10.
Gonzalez DiazECShihYVNakasakiM, et al.
Mineralized biomaterials mediated repair of bone defects through endogenous cells. Tissue Eng A2018;
24: 1148–1156.
11.
HenchLL.The story of Bioglass. J Mater Sci2006;
17: 967–978.
HenchLLWilsonJ.An introduction to bioceramics. 2nd ed.
London:
Imperial College Press, 2013, p.620.
14.
XynosIDEdgarAJButteryLD, et al.
Ionic products of bioactive glass dissolution increase proliferation of human osteoblasts and induce insulin-like growth factor II mRNA expression and protein synthesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun2000;
276: 461–465.
15.
NavarroMdel ValleSMartinezS, et al.
New macroporous calcium phosphate glass ceramic for guided bone regeneration. Biomaterials2004;
25: 4233–4241.
16.
FujishiroYHenchLLOonishiH.Quantitative rates of in vivo bone generation for bioglass and hydroxyapatite particles as bone graft substitute. J Mater Sci Mater Med1997;
8: 649–652.
17.
TataraAMMikosAG.Tissue engineering in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol2016;
98: 1132–1139.
18.
VargasGEHaro DurandLACadenaV, et al.
Effect of nano-sized bioactive glass particles on the angiogenic properties of collagen based composites. J Mater Sci2013;
24: 1261–1269.
19.
XiaoY.Bone tissue engineering for dentistry and orthopaedics. BioMed Res Int2014;
2014: 241067.
20.
KwakHB.Aging, exercise, and extracellular matrix in the heart. J Exer Rehabil2013;
9: 338–347.
21.
KidoHWGabbai-ArmelinPRAvanziIR, et al. Vacuumed collagen-impregnated bioglass scaffolds: Characterization and influence on proliferation and differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells. J Biomed Mater Res B 2019; 107B: 211–222.
22.
MagriAMPFernandesKRUenoFR, et al. Osteoconductive properties of two different bioactive glass forms (powder and fiber) combined with collagen. Appl Surf Sci 2017; 423: 557–565.
23.
WheelerTSSbravatiNDJanorkarAV.Mechanical & cell culture properties of elastin-like polypeptide, collagen, bioglass, and carbon nanosphere composites. Ann Biomed Eng2013;
41: 2042–2055.
24.
SunHZhuFHuQ, et al.
Controlling stem cell-mediated bone regeneration through tailored mechanical properties of collagen scaffolds. Biomaterials2014;
35: 1176–1184.
25.
ChenQRoetherJABoccacciniAR.Tissue engineering scaffolds from bioactive glass and composite materials. In: AshammakhiNReisRChielliniE (eds) Topics in tissue engineering 2008, pp. 1–27.
26.
HanHSMinghuiYSeokHK, et al.
The modification of microstructure to improve the biodegradation and mechanical properties of a biodegradable Mg alloy. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2013;
20: 54–60.
27.
HuanZLeeflangSZhouJ, et al.
In vitro degradation behavior and bioactivity of magnesium-bioglass((R)) composites for orthopedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res2012;
100: 437–446.
28.
Gabbai-ArmelinPRCaliariHMSilvaDF, et al.
Association of bioglass/collagen/magnesium composites and low level irradiation: effects on bone healing in a model of tibial defect in rats. Laser Ther2018:
27: 271–282.
29.
HenchLL.Introduction to bioceramics. 2nd ed.
London:
Imperial College Press, 2013, p.620.
30.
NussKMRvon RechenbergB.Biocompatibility issues with modern implants in bone – a review for clinical orthopedics. Open Orthopaed J2008;
2: 66–78.
31.
OzelTBartoloPJCerettiE, et al.Biomedical devices: design, prototyping, and manufacturing.
New York, NY:
Wiley, 2016.
32.
Lopez-HerediaMASaYSalmonP, et al.
Bulk properties and bioactivity assessment of porous polymethylmethacrylate cement loaded with calcium phosphates under simulated physiological conditions. Acta Biomater2012;
8: 3120–3127.
33.
WangLYoonDMSpicerPP, et al.
Characterization of porous polymethylmethacrylate space maintainers for craniofacial reconstruction. J Biomed Mater Res2013;
101: 813–825.
34.
SousaTHS.Projeto conceitual de implante bioativo com gradiente de estrutura funcional em PMMA e HA. Analises: in vitro e in vivo. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos, 2009.
35.
HaachLCA.Corpos Compósitos de Poli(Metacrilato de Metila) Com Microfibra de Biovidro e Poros Para Reparo de Defeitos Ósseos. 2015; Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos, Brazil.
36.
MagriAMFernandesKRAssisL, et al.
Photobiomodulation and bone healing in diabetic rats: evaluation of bone response using a tibial defect experimental model. Lasers Med Sci2015;
30: 1949–1957.
37.
MagriAMPFernandesKRUenoFR, et al.
Osteoconductive properties of two different bioactive glass forms (powder and fiber) combined with collagen. Appl Surf Sci2017;
423: 557–565.
38.
FernandesKRMagriAMPKidoHW, et al.
Biosilicate/PLGA osteogenic effects modulated by laser therapy: in vitro and in vivo studies. J Photochem Photobiol B2017;
173: 258–265.
39.
ParfittAM.Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols and units (summary of proposed system). Bone1988;
9: 67–69.
40.
HsuFYLuMRWengRC, et al.
Hierarchically biomimetic scaffold of a collagen-mesoporous bioactive glass nanofiber composite for bone tissue engineering. Biomed Mater2015;
10: 025007.
41.
NijsureMPPastakiaMSpanoJ, et al.
Bioglass incorporation improves mechanical properties and enhances cell-mediated mineralization on electrochemically aligned collagen threads. J Biomed Mater Res A2017;
105: 2429–2440.
42.
BurnsCEDeBlasioTZhouY, et al.
Isolation and characterization of runxa and runxb, zebrafish members of the runt family of transcriptional regulators. Exp Hematol2002;
30: 1381–1389.
43.
AfzalFPolakJButteryL.Endothelial nitric oxide synthase in the control of osteoblastic mineralizing activity and bone integrity. J Pathol2004;
202: 503–510.
44.
LemaireVTobinFLGrellerLD, et al.
Modeling the interactions between osteoblast and osteoclast activities in bone remodeling. J Theor Biol2004;
229: 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.03.023
45.
KearnsAEKhoslaSKostenuikPJ.Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand and osteoprotegerin regulation of bone remodeling in health and disease. Endocrine Rev2008;
29: 155–192.
46.
AnandarajahAP.Role of RANKL in bone diseases. Trends Endocrinol Metab2009;
20: 88–94.
47.
BossiniPSRennoACRibeiroDA, et al.
Low level laser therapy (830 nm) improves bone repair in osteoporotic rats: similar outcomes at two different dosages. Exp Gerontol2012;
47: 136–142.
48.
FernandesKRRibeiroDARodriguesNC, et al.
Effects of low-level laser therapy on the expression of osteogenic genes related in the initial stages of bone defects in rats. J Biomed Opt2013;
18: 038002.
49.
MedalhaCCSantosALVeronez SdeO, et al.
Low level laser therapy accelerates bone healing in spinal cord injured rats. J Photochem Photobiol B2016;
159: 179–185.
50.
PintoKNTimCRCrovaceMC, et al.
Effects of biosilicate((R)) scaffolds and low-level laser therapy on the process of bone healing. Photomed Laser Surg2013;
31: 252–260.
51.
TimCRPintoKNRossiBR, et al.
Low-level laser therapy enhances the expression of osteogenic factors during bone repair in rats. Lasers Med Sci2014;
29: 147–156.
52.
GalliSNaitoYKarlssonJ, et al.
Local release of magnesium from mesoporous TiO2 coatings stimulates the peri-implant expression of osteogenic markers and improves osteoconductivity in vivo. Acta Biomater2014;
10: 5193–5201.
53.
DaiCGuoHLuJ, et al.
Osteogenic evaluation of calcium/magnesium-doped mesoporous silica scaffold with incorporation of rhBMP-2 by synchrotron radiation-based µCT. Biomaterials2011;
32: 8506–8517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.090
54.
ZhangNZhaoDLiuN, et al.
Assessment of the degradation rates and effectiveness of different coated Mg-Zn-Ca alloy scaffolds for in vivo repair of critical-size bone defects. J Mater Sci Mater Med2018;
29: 138.
KhandakerMPHLiYLTarantiniS, et al.Interfacial fracture strength measurement of tissue-biomaterial systems.
New York, NY:
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012, pp.625–630.
