While autografts to date remain the “gold standard” for bone void fillers, synthetic bone grafts have garnered attention due to their favorable advantages such as ability to be tailored in terms of their physical and chemical properties. Bioactive glass (BG), an inorganic material, has the capacity to form a strong bond with bone by forming a bone-like apatite surface, enhancing osteogenesis. Coupled with additive manufacturing (3D printing) it is possible to maximize bone regenerative properties of the BG.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to synthesize and characterize 3D printed mesoporous bioactive glass (MBG), BG 45S5, and compare to β-Tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) based scaffolds; test cell viability and osteogenic differentiation on human osteoprogenitor cells in vitro.
METHODS:
MBG, BG 45S5, and β-TCP were fabricated into colloidal gel suspensions, tested with a rheometer, and manufactured into scaffolds using a 3D direct-write micro-printer. The materials were characterized in terms of microstructure and composition with Thermogravimetric Analyzer/Differential Scanning Calorimeter (TGA/DSC), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray Diffraction (XRD), Micro-Computed Tomography (μ-CT), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS), and Mattauch–Herzog-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (MH-ICP-MS).
RESULTS:
Scaffolds were tested for cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation using human osteoprogenitor cells. Osteogenic media was used for differentiation, and immunocytochemistry for osteogenic markers Runx-2, Collagen-I, and Osteocalcin. The cell viability results after 7 days of culture yielded significantly higher (p < 0.05) results in β-TCP scaffolds compared to BG 45S5 and MBG groups.
CONCLUSION:
All materials expressed osteogenic markers after 21 days of culture in expansion and osteogenic media.
RibasR.G.SchatkoskiV.M.MontanheiroT.L.d.A.de MenezesB.R.C.StegemannC.LeiteD.M.G., Current advances in bone tissue engineering concerning ceramic and bioglass scaffolds: A review, Ceramics International45(17) (2019), 21051–21061.
2.
WieseA. and PapeH.C., Bone defects caused by high-energy injuries, bone loss, infected nonunions, and nonunions, Orthop Clin North Am41(1) (2010), 1–4, table of contents.
3.
DuX.WeiD.HuangL.ZhuM.ZhangY. and ZhuY., 3D printing of mesoporous bioactive glass/silk fibroin composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering, Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl103 (2019), 109731.
4.
SchemitschE.H., Size matters: Defining critical in bone defect size!J Orthop Trauma31(Suppl 5) (2017), S20–S22.
5.
WangW. and YeungK.W.K., Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review, Bioact Mater2(4) (2017), 224–247.
6.
LopezC.D.WitekL.TorroniA.FloresR.L.DemissieD.B.YoungS., The role of 3D printing in treating craniomaxillofacial congenital anomalies, Birth Defects Res110(13) (2018), 1055–1064.
7.
WangM.M.FloresR.L.WitekL.TorroniA.IbrahimA.WangZ., Dipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity, Sci Rep9(1) (2019), 18439.
8.
TovarN.WitekL.AtriaP.SobierajM.BowersM.LopezC.D., Form and functional repair of long bone using 3D-printed bioactive scaffolds, J Tissue Eng Regen Med12(9) (2018), 1986–1999.
9.
VaranasiV.G.OwyoungJ.B.SaizE.MarshallS.J.MarshallG.W. and LoomerP.M., The ionic products of bioactive glass particle dissolution enhance periodontal ligament fibroblast osteocalcin expression and enhance early mineralized tissue development, J Biomed Mater Res A98(2) (2011), 177–184.
10.
BariA.BloiseN.FiorilliS.NovajraG.Vallet-RegiM.BruniG., Copper-containing mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles as multifunctional agent for bone regeneration, Acta Biomater55 (2017), 493–504.
LopezC.D.Diaz-SisoJ.R.WitekL.BekiszJ.M.CronsteinB.N.TorroniA., Three dimensionally printed bioactive ceramic scaffold osseoconduction across critical-sized mandibular defects, J Surg Res223 (2018), 115–122.
13.
LehmanL.F.C.de NoronhaM.S.DinizI.M.A.da CostaE.S.R.M.F.AndradeA.L.de Sousa LimaL.F., Bioactive glass containing 90% SiO2 in hard tissue engineering: An in vitro and in vivo characterization study, J Tissue Eng Regen Med13(9) (2019), 1651–1663.
14.
KowalT.J.HahnN.C.EiderS.MarzillierJ.Y.FoderaD.M.ThammaU., New bioactive glass scaffolds with exceptional qualities for bone tissue regeneration: Response of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, Biomed Mater13(2) (2018), 025005.
15.
El-SayedM.M.MostafaA.A.GaafarA.M.El HotabyW.HamzawyE.M.El-OkailyM.S., In vitro kinetic investigations on the bioactivity and cytocompatibility of bioactive glasses prepared via melting and sol–gel techniques for bone regeneration applications, Biomed Mater12(1) (2017), 015029.
16.
WuC.LuoY.CunibertiG.XiaoY. and GelinskyM., Three-dimensional printing of hierarchical and tough mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds with a controllable pore architecture, excellent mechanical strength and mineralization ability, Acta Biomater7(6) (2011), 2644–2650.
17.
NescakovaZ.ZhengK.LiveraniL.NawazQ.GaluskovaD.KankovaH., Multifunctional zinc ion doped sol–gel derived mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles for biomedical applications, Bioact Mater4 (2019), 312–321.
18.
QiX.WangH.ZhangY.PangL.XiaoW.JiaW., Mesoporous bioactive glass-coated 3D printed borosilicate bioactive glass scaffolds for improving repair of bone defects, Int J Biol Sci14(4) (2018), 471–484.
19.
BainoF., Bioactive glasses – when glass science and technology meet regenerative medicine, Ceramics International44(13) (2018), 14953–14966.
20.
QiX.PeiP.ZhuM.DuX.XinC.ZhaoS., Three dimensional printing of calcium sulfate and mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for improving bone regeneration in vitro and in vivo, Sci Rep7 (2017), 42556.
21.
WuC. and ChangJ., Mesoporous bioactive glasses: Structure characteristics, drug/growth factor delivery and bone regeneration application, Interface Focus2(3) (2012), 292–306.
22.
BoccardiE.PhilippartA.MelliV.AltomareL.De NardoL.NovajraG., Bioactivity and mechanical stability of 45S5 bioactive glass scaffolds based on natural marine sponges, Ann Biomed Eng44(6) (2016), 1881–1893.
23.
Nommeots-NommA.LabbafS.DevlinA.ToddN.GengH.SolankiA.K., Highly degradable porous melt-derived bioactive glass foam scaffolds for bone regeneration, Acta Biomater57 (2017), 449–461.
24.
HoppeA.GuldalN.S. and BoccacciniA.R., A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics, Biomaterials32(11) (2011), 2757–2774.
25.
PirayeshH. and NychkaJ.A., Sol–gel synthesis of bioactive glass-ceramic 45S5 and its in vitro dissolution and mineralization behavior, J Am Ceram Soc96(5) (2013), 1643–1650.
26.
EqtesadiS.MoteallehA.MirandaP.LemosA.RebeloA. and FerreiraJ.M.F., A simple recipe for direct writing complex 45S5 bioglasss 3D scaffolds, Materials Letters93 (2013), 68–71.
27.
FuS.DuX.ZhuM.TianZ.WeiD. and ZhuY., 3D printing of layered mesoporous bioactive glass/sodium alginate–sodium alginate scaffolds with controllable dual-drug release behaviors, Biomed Mater14(6) (2019), 065011.
28.
PeiP.QiX.DuX.ZhuM.ZhaoS. and ZhuY., Three-dimensional printing of tricalcium silicate/mesoporous bioactive glass cement scaffolds for bone regeneration, J Mater Chem B4(46) (2016), 7452–7463.
29.
LuoY.WuC.LodeA. and GelinskyM., Hierarchical mesoporous bioactive glass/alginate composite scaffolds fabricated by three-dimensional plotting for bone tissue engineering, Biofabrication5 (2013), 015005.
30.
BauchleM.LudeckeT.RabiehS.CalnekK. and BromageT.G., Quantification of 71 detected elements from Li to U for aqueous samples by simultaneous-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, Rsc Adv8(65) (2018), 37008–37020.
31.
XieL.YuH.Y.DengY.YangW.Z.LiaoL. and LongQ., Preparation, characterization and in vitro dissolution behavior of porous biphasic alpha/beta-tricalcium phosphate bioceramics, Mat Sci Eng C-Mater59 (2016), 1007–1015.
32.
VafaE.Bazargan-LariR. and BahrololoomM.E., Synthesis of 45S5 bioactive glass-ceramic using the sol–gel method, catalyzed by low concentration acetic acid extracted from homemade vinegar, J Mater Res Technol10 (2021), 1427–1436.
33.
ShahA.T.AinQ.ChaudhryA.A.KhanA.F.IqbalB.AhmadS., A study of the effect of precursors on physical and biological properties of mesoporous bioactive glass, Journal of Materials Science50(4) (2015), 1794–1804.
34.
CiraldoF.E.BoccardiE.MelliV.WesthauserF. and BoccacciniA.R., Tackling bioactive glass excessive in vitro bioreactivity: preconditioning approaches for cell culture tests, Acta Biomater75 (2018), 3–10.
35.
MoteallehA.EqtesadiS.CivantosA.PajaresA. and MirandaP., Robocast 45S5 bioglass scaffolds: in vitro behavior, Journal of Materials Science (52) (2017), 9179–9191.
36.
CacciottiI.LombardiM.BiancoA.RavaglioliA. and MontanaroL., Sol–gel derived 45S5 bioglass: Synthesis, microstructural evolution and thermal behaviour, J Mater Sci Mater Med23(8) (2012), 1849–1866.
37.
HerrmannM.HildebrandM.MenzelU.FahyN.AliniM.LangS., Phenotypic characterization of bone marrow mononuclear cells and derived stromal cell populations from human iliac crest, vertebral body and femoral head, International Journal of Molecular Sciences20(14) (2019); 3454.
38.
VigilanteA.LaddachA.MoensN.MeleckyteR.LehaA.GhahramaniA., Identifying extrinsic versus intrinsic drivers of variation in cell behavior in human iPSC lines from healthy donors, Cell Rep26(8) (2019), 2078-+.
39.
BarrioniB.R.NorrisE.LiS.NaruphontjirakulP.JonesJ.R. and PereiraM.M., Osteogenic potential of sol–gel bioactive glasses containing manganese, J Mater Sci Mater Med30(7) (2019), 86.
40.
NaruphontjirakulP.PorterA.E. and JonesJ.R., In vitro osteogenesis by intracellular uptake of strontium containing bioactive glass nanoparticles, Acta Biomater66 (2018), 67–80.
