The purpose of this two-year study was to evaluate the histocompatibility and osteogenic properties of a composite material consisting of poly(l-co-d,l lactide) (PLDLA) and silica-based bioactive glass fibers in vivo. PLDLA and PLDLA/silica-based bioactive glass fibers pins were implanted into the erector spinae muscles and femurs of beagles. Muscle and bone tissue samples were harvested 6, 12, 16, 26, 52, 78, and 104 weeks after implantation. Histology analysis was used to assess the histocompatibility, angiogenesis, and bone-implant contact. Micro-computed tomography was used to evaluate bone formation around the pins. Immunohistochemistry and western blotting revealed the expression level of the osteogenesis-related proteins. Addition of bioactive glass was demonstrated to possess better histocompatibility and reduce the inflammatory reactions in vivo. Moreover, PLDLA/silica-based bioactive glass fibers pins were demonstrated to promote angiogenesis and increase osteogenesis-related proteins expression, and thus played a positive role in osteogenesis and osseointegration after implantation. Our findings indicated that a composite of PLDLA and silica-based bioactive glass fiber is a promising biodegradable material for clinical use.
BuserDSennerbyLDe BruynH.Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 20002017;
73: 7–21.
2.
AghalooTLMischCLinGH, et al.
Bone augmentation of the edentulous maxilla for implant placement: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2016;
31: s19–30.
3.
ChiapascoMZaniboniMBoiscoM.Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res2006;
17: 136–159.
4.
RakhmatiaYDAyukawaYFuruhashiA, et al.
Current barrier membranes: titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental applications. J Prosthodont Res2013;
57: 3–14.
5.
JeghamHMasmoudiROuertaniH, et al.
Ridge augmentation with titanium mesh: a case report. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg2017;
118: 181–186.
6.
Aloy-ProsperAPenarrocha-OltraDPenarrocha-DiagoM, et al.
The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral2015;
20: e251–258.
7.
RoccuzzoMRamieriGSpadaMC, et al.
Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res2004;
15: 73–81.
8.
MessiasADMartinsKFMottaAC, et al.
Synthesis, characterization, and osteoblastic cell culture of poly(L-co-D,L-lactide-co-trimethylene carbonate) scaffolds. Int J Biomater2014;
2014: 501789–501707.
9.
BergstromJSHaymanD.An overview of mechanical properties and material modeling of polylactide (PLA) for medical applications. Ann Biomed Eng2016;
44: 330–340.
10.
OnumaYSerruysPW.Bioresorbable scaffold: the advent of a new era in percutaneous coronary and peripheral revascularization?Circulation2011;
123: 779–797.
11.
YangLXuMJinX, et al.
Complications of absorbable fixation in maxillofacial surgery: a meta-analysis. PLoS One2013;
8: e67449.
12.
QiZRZhangQTanLL, et al.
Comparison of degradation behavior and the associated bone response of ZK60 and PLLA in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res A2014;
102: 1255–1263.
13.
NairLSLaurencinCT.Polymers as biomaterials for tissue engineering and controlled drug delivery. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol2006;
102: 47–90.
14.
NieminenTRantalaIHiidenheimoI, et al.
Degradative and mechanical properties of a novel resorbable plating system during a 3-year follow-up in vivo and in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med2008;
19: 1155–1163.
15.
SalmoriaGVPereiraRVFredelMC, et al.
Properties of PLDLA/bioglass scaffolds produced by selective laser sintering. Polym Bull2017;
74: 1–11.
16.
XiaoWZaeemMALiG, et al.
Tough and strong porous bioactive glass-PLA composites for structural bone repair. J Mater Sci2017;
52: 9039–9054.
17.
RahamanMNDayDEBalBS, et al.
Bioactive glass in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater2011;
7: 2355–2373.
18.
MisraSKMohnDBrunnerTJ, et al.
Comparison of nanoscale and microscale bioactive glass on the properties of P(3HB)/Bioglass composites. Biomaterials2008;
29: 1750–1761.
19.
PamulaEKokoszkaJCholewa-KowalskaK, et al.
Degradation, bioactivity, and osteogenic potential of composites made of PLGA and two different sol-gel bioactive glasses. Ann Biomed Eng2011;
39: 2114–2129.
20.
van GestelNAGeurtsJHulsenDJ, et al.
Clinical applications of S53P4 bioactive glass in bone healing and osteomyelitic treatment: a literature review. Biomed Res Int2015;
2015: 684826–684810.
21.
LehtonenTJTuominenJUHiekkanenE.Resorbable composites with bioresorbable glass fibers for load-bearing applications. In vitro degradation and degradation mechanism. Acta Biomater2013;
9: 4868–4877.
22.
UekiKOkabeKMiyazakiM, et al.
Skeletal stability after mandibular setback surgery: comparisons among unsintered hydroxyapatite/poly-L-lactic acid plate, poly-L-lactic acid plate, and titanium plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2011;
69: 1464–1468.
23.
ISO 19003-6: Biological evaluation of medical devices part 6: Tests for local effects after implantation 2016: 23.
24.
WangYWuPSunDY, et al. Osteogenic, mechanical and degradative properties of PLDLA biodegradable pins with bioactive glass fibers in a beagle model. Biomed Mater. 2020; 15: 035010.
25.
UngersbockAPohlerOEPerrenSM.Evaluation of soft tissue reactions at the interface of titanium limited contact dynamic compression plate implants with different surface treatments: an experimental sheep study. Biomaterials1996;
17: 797–806.
26.
AndersonJMRodriguezAChangDT.Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol2008;
20: 86–100.
27.
IgnatiusAAClaesLE.In vitro biocompatibility of bioresorbable polymers: poly(L, DL-lactide) and poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide). Biomaterials1996;
17: 831–839.
28.
EspositoARModaMCattaniSM, et al.
PLDLA/PCL-T scaffold for meniscus tissue engineering. Biores Open Access2013;
2: 138–147.
29.
KomatsuDMisturaDVMottaA, et al.
Development of a membrane of poly (L-co-D,L lactic acid-co-trimethylene carbonate) with aloe vera: An alternative biomaterial designed to improve skin healing. J Biomater Appl2017;
32: 311–320.
30.
PeltoniemiHAshammakhiNKontioR, et al.
The use of bioabsorbable osteofixation devices in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2002;
94: 5–14.
31.
HutmacherDW.Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials2000;
21: 2529–2543.
32.
JonesJR.Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater2013;
9: 4457–4486.
33.
ZhangDLepparantaOMunukkaE, et al.
Antibacterial effects and dissolution behavior of six bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res A2010;
93: 475–483.
34.
Mercado-PaganAEStahlAMShanjaniY, et al.
Vascularization in bone tissue engineering constructs. Ann Biomed Eng2015;
43: 718–729.
35.
WeiJHerrlerTDaiC, et al.
Guided self-generation of vascularized neo-bone for autologous reconstruction of large mandibular defects. J Craniofac Surg2016;
27: 958–962.
36.
PatroiDGociuMPrejmereanC, et al.
Assessing the biocompatibility of a dental composite product. Rom J Morphol Embryol2013;
54: 321–326.
37.
Kunert-KeilCBotzenhartUGedrangeT, et al.
Interrelationship between bone substitution materials and skeletal muscle tissue. Ann Anat2015;
199: 73–78.
38.
GorustovichAARoetherJABoccacciniAR.Effect of bioactive glasses on angiogenesis: a review of in vitro and in vivo evidences. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2010;
16: 199–207.
39.
HayrapetyanAJansenJAvan den BeuckenJJ.Signaling pathways involved in osteogenesis and their application for bone regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2015;
21: 75–87.
40.
DayRMBoccacciniARShureyS, et al.
Assessment of polyglycolic acid mesh and bioactive glass for soft-tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials2004;
25: 5857–5866.
41.
LeuALeachJK.Proangiogenic potential of a collagen/bioactive glass substrate. Pharm Res2008;
25: 1222–1229.
42.
El-RashidyAARoetherJAHarhausL, et al.
Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: a review of in vivo studies in bone defect models. Acta Biomater2017;
62: 1–28.
43.
WheelerDLStokesKEParkHM, et al.
Evaluation of particulate bioglass in a rabbit radius ostectomy model. J Biomed Mater Res1997;
35: 249–254.
44.
WheelerDLStokesKEHoellrichRG, et al.
Effect of bioactive glass particle size on osseous regeneration of cancellous defects. J Biomed Mater Res1998;
41: 527–533.
LehmanLFCde NoronhaMSDinizIMA, et al.
Bioactive glass containing 90% SiO2 in hard tissue engineering: an in vitro and in vivo characterization study. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2019;
13: 1651–1663.
47.
FuQSaizERahamanMN, et al.
Bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state of the art and future perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2011;
31: 1245–1256.
48.
HenchLL.Biomaterials: a forecast for the future. Biomaterials1998;
19: 1419–1423.
49.
IsidorF.Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res2006;
17: 8–18.
50.
PiotrowskiBBaptistaAAPatoorE, et al.
Interaction of bone-dental implant with new ultra low modulus alloy using a numerical approach. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2014;
38: 151–160.
51.
ChenHGhori-JavedFYRashidH, et al.
Runx2 regulates endochondral ossification through control of chondrocyte proliferation and differentiation. J Bone Miner Res2014;
29: 2653–2665.
52.
BrudererMRichardsRGAliniM, et al.
Role and regulation of RUNX2 in osteogenesis. Eur Cell Mater2014;
28: 269–286.
53.
VandammeKHolyXBensidhoumM, et al.
In vivo molecular evidence of delayed titanium implant osseointegration in compromised bone. Biomaterials2011;
32: 3547–3554.
54.
ParkSYKimKHGwakEH, et al.
Ex vivo bone morphogenetic protein 2 gene delivery using periodontal ligament stem cells for enhanced re-osseointegration in the regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis. J Biomed Mater Res A2015;
103: 38–47.
55.
GalliSJimboRNaitoY, et al.
Chemically modified titanium-zirconium implants in comparison with commercially pure titanium controls stimulate the early molecular pathways of bone healing. Clin Oral Implants Res2017;
28: 1234–1240.
56.
BuhlerRBSennesLUTsujiDH, et al.
Collagen type I, collagen type III, and versican in vocal fold lamina propria. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2011;
137: 604–608.
57.
BosettiMZanardiLHenchL, et al.
Type I collagen production by osteoblast-like cells cultured in contact with different bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res A2003;
64: 189–195.
58.
FoppianoSMarshallSJMarshallGW, et al.
Bioactive glass coatings affect the behavior of osteoblast-like cells. Acta Biomater2007;
3: 765–771.
59.
HanCBAnSC.Injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of oral bone defect. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci2016;
20: 1665–1668.
60.
Gabbai-ArmelinPRSouzaMTKidoHW, et al.
Effect of a new bioactive fibrous glassy scaffold on bone repair. J Mater Sci Mater Med2015;
26: 177.
