Complex assessment of gradual changes in scaffold morphology and stiffness is an essential step in bone filler development. Current approach, however, does not reflect long term cell proliferation effect as the mechanical tests are usually conducted on pristine materials without cells or cell influence on material stiffness is evaluated after one time period only. Here, biocompatible silk fibroin (SF) porous scaffolds envisioned for bone defect filling were prepared by dissolving of fibroin fibers, followed by dialysis, freeze-drying and final stabilization. Particular attention was devoted to the influence of bone cell proliferation up to 2 months on the stiffness of the material. The morphology of the material was studied in terms of its inner structure and the overall changes in the surface characteristics due to proliferation of MG 63 bone cell line. The SF scaffold stiffness significantly increased during first month followed by its decline during second month due to bone cell seeding. After 2 months, the SF scaffold was completely colonized, which resulted in a gradual decay of its structure. The length of degradation due to bone cell proliferation and mechanical behavior corresponded to the requirements set for reasonable filler material indicating that porous SF scaffolds comprise a promising biomaterial for bone regeneration.
WinklerTSassFDudaG, et al. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering. Bone Joint Res2018; 7(3): 232–243.
2.
HernlundESvedbomAIvergårdM, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. Arch Osteoporos2013; 8, 136.
CampanaVMilanoGPaganoE, et al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med2014; 25(10): 2445–2461.
5.
HernlundmESvedbomAIvergårdM, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. Arch Osteoporos2013; 8(1): 136.
6.
QuHFuHHanZ, et al. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: a review. RSC Adv2019; 9(45): 26252–26262.
7.
LegantWPathakAYangM, et al. Microfabricated tissue gauges to measure and manipulate forces from 3D microtissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2009; 106(25): 10097–10102.
8.
WenJVincentLFuhrmannA, et al. Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat Mater2014; 13(10): 10.
9.
Sanz-FraileHAmorosSMendizabalI, et al. Silk-reinforced collagen hydrogels with raised multiscale stiffness for mesenchymal cells 3D culture. Tissue Eng Part A2020; 26: 358–370.
10.
SrinivasanPMillerMAVerdonschotV, et al. Strain shielding in trabecular bone at the tibial cement-bone interface. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 66: 181–186.
11.
ClaesLBlakytnyRBesseJ, et al. Late dynamization by reduced fixation stiffness enhances fracture healing in a rat femoral osteotomy model. J Orthop Trauma2011; 25(3): 169–174.
12.
YangYFengYQuR, et al. Synthesis of aligned porous polyethylene glycol/silk fibroin/hydroxyapatite scaffolds for osteoinduction in bone tissue engineering. Stem Cell Res Ther2020; 11: 522.
13.
GhouseSReznikovNBoughtonB, et al. The design and in vivo testing of a locally stiffness-matched porous scaffold. Appl Mater Today2019; 15: 377–388.
14.
ZakySHLeeKGaoJ, et al. Poly (glycerol sebacate) elastomer supports bone regeneration by its mechanical properties being closer to osteoid tissue rather than to mature bone. Acta Biomater2017; 54: 95–106.
15.
DasguptaSMajiKNandiSK.Investigating the mechanical, physiochemical and osteogenic properties in gelatin-chitosan-bioactive nanoceramic composite scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration: in vitro and in vivo. Mater Sci Eng C2019; 94: 713–728.
16.
WenJHVincentLGFuhrmannA, et al. Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat Mater2014; 13: 979–987.
17.
Sanz-FraileHAmorosSMendizabalI, et al. Silk-reinforced collagen hydrogels with raised multiscale stiffness for mesenchymal cells 3D culture. Tissue Eng Part A2020; 26: 358–370.
18.
MaggiALiHGreerJ.Three-dimensional nano-architected scaffolds with tunable stiffness for efficient bone tissue growth. Acta Biomater2017; 63: 294–305.
19.
PoblothAChecaSRaziH, et al. Mechanobiologically optimized 3D titanium-mesh scaffolds enhance bone regeneration in critical segmental defects in sheep. Sci Transl Med2018; 10: 423.
20.
PohPSValainisDBhattacharyaK, et al. Optimization of bone scaffold porosity distributions. Sci Rep2019; 9: 9170.
21.
KimDSimBKimK, et al. Functionalized silk fibroin film scaffold using β-Carotene for cornea endothelial cell regeneration. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2018; 164: 340–346.
22.
TomehMHadianamreiRZhaoX.Silk fibroin as a functional biomaterial for drug and gene delivery. Pharmaceutics2019; 11: 10.
23.
FarokhiMMottaghitalabFFatahiY, et al. Overview of silk fibroin use in wound dressings. Trends Biotechnol2018; 36(9): 907–922.
24.
MandalBKunduS.Osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation of rat bone marrow cells on non-mulberry and mulberry silk gland fibroin 3D scaffolds. Biomaterials2009; 30(28): 5019–5030.
25.
LuQZhangBLiM, et al. Degradation mechanism and control of silk fibroin. Biomacromolecules2011; 12(4): 1080–1086.
26.
LiYLiuZTangY, et al. Three-dimensional silk fibroin scaffolds enhance the bone formation and angiogenic differentiation of human amniotic mesenchymal stem cells: a biocompatibility analysis. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin2020; 52: 590–602.
27.
WuJZhengALiuY, et al. Enhanced bone regeneration of the silk fibroin electrospun scaffolds through the modification of the graphene oxide functionalized by BMP-2 peptide. Int J Nanomedicine2019; 14: 733–751.
28.
MelkeJMidhaSGhoshS, et al. Silk fibroin as biomaterial for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater2016; 31: 1–16.
29.
KohLDChengYTengCP, et al. Structures, mechanical properties and applications of silk fibroin materials. Prog Polym Sci2015; 46: 86–110.
30.
ShaoZVollrathF.Surprising strength of silkworm silk. Nature2002; 418: 741–741.
31.
VollrathFBarthPBasedowA, et al. Local tolerance to spider silks and protein polymers in vivo. In Vivo. 2002; 16(4): 229–234.
32.
JohariNMoroniLSamadikuchaksaraeiA.Tuning the conformation and mechanical properties of silk fibroin hydrogels. Eur Polym J2020; 134: 109842.
33.
KetenSXuZIhleB, et al. Nanoconfinement controls stiffness, strength and mechanical toughness of β-sheet crystals in silk. Nat Mater2010; 9: 359–367.
34.
KrasnovIDiddensIHauptmannN, et al. Mechanical properties of silk: interplay of deformation on macroscopic and molecular length scales. Phys Rev Lett2008; 100: 048104.
35.
JiříkMBartošMTomášekP, et al. Generating standardized image data for testing and calibrating quantification of volumes, surfaces, lengths, and object counts in fibrous and porous materials using X-ray microtomography. Microsc Res Tech2018; 81(6): 551–568.
36.
MurphyCHaughMO’BrienF.The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2010; 31(3): 461–466.
37.
LiuHFanHWangY, et al. The interaction between a combined knitted silk scaffold and microporous silk sponge with human mesenchymal stem cells for ligament tissue engineering. Biomaterials2008; 29: 662–674.
38.
WarneckeDSteinSHaffner-LuntzerM, et al. Biomechanical, structural and biological characterisation of a new silk fibroin scaffold for meniscal repair. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2018; 86: 314–324.
39.
FlintLHammGReadyJ, et al. Comparison of osteosarcoma aggregated tumour models with human tissue by multimodal mass spectrometry imaging. Metabolites2021; 11: 506.
40.
PautkeCSchiekerMTischerT, et al. Characterization of osteosarcoma cell lines MG-63, Saos-2 and U-2 OS in comparison to human osteoblasts. Anticancer Res2004; 24: 3743–3748.
