In-vivo evaluations of bone regenerative potential of two novel bioactive glasses.
bioactive glasses (BGs)
biocompatibility
bone regeneration
in vivo tests
osteoconductivity
rabbits
Journal
Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A
ISSN: 1552-4965
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Mater Res A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101234237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
revised:
13
02
2023
received:
06
04
2022
accepted:
23
02
2023
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
entrez:
6
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to the aging of population, materials able to repair damaged tissues are needed. Among others, bioactive glasses (BGs) have attracted a lot of interest due to their outstanding properties both for hard and soft tissues. Here, for the first time, two new BGs, which gave very promising results in preliminary in vitro-tests, were implanted in animals in order to evaluate their regenerative potential. The new BGs, named BGMS10 and Bio_MS and containing specific therapeutic ions, were produced in granules and implanted in rabbits' femurs for up to 60 days, to test their biocompatibility and osteoconduction. Additionally, granules of 45S5 Bioglass® were employed and used as a standard reference for comparison. The results showed that, after 30 days, the two novel BGs and 45S5 displayed a similar behavior, in terms of bone amount, thickness of new bone trabeculae and affinity index. On the contrary, after 60 days, 45S5 granules were mainly surrounded by wide and scattered bone trabeculae, separated by large amounts of soft tissue, while in BGMS10 and Bio_MS the trabeculae were thin and uniformly distributed around the BG granules. This latter scenario could be considered as more advantageous, since the features of the two novel BG granules allowed for the neo-formation of a uniformly distributed bony trabeculae, predictive of more favorable mechanical behavior, compared to the less uniform coarse trabeculae, separated by large areas of soft tissue in 45S5 granules. Thus, BGMS10 and Bio_MS could be considered suitable products for tissue regeneration in the orthopedic and dental fields.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1264-1278Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, et al. Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:509-516.
Campana V, Milano G, Pagano E, et al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014;25:2445-2461.
Dec P, Modrzejewski A, Pawlik A. Existing and novel biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:529.
Hench LL. The story of bioglass®. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17:967-978.
Jones JR. Reprint of: review of bioactive glass: from hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater. 2015;23:S53-S82.
Miguez-Pacheco V, Hench LL, Boccaccini AR. Bioactive glasses beyond bone and teeth: emerging applications in contact with soft tissues. Acta Biomater. 2015;13:1-15.
Baheiraei N, Eyni H, Bakhshi B, Najafloo R, Rabiee N. Effects of strontium ions with potential antibacterial activity on in vivo bone regeneration. Sci Rep. 2021;11:8745.
Naseri S, Lepry WC, Nazhat SN. Bioactive glasses in wound healing: hope or hype? J Mater Chem B. 2017;5:6167-6174.
Kargozar S, Mozafari M, Hamzehlou S, Baino F. Using bioactive glasses in the management of burns. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:62.
Lefebvre L, Chevalier J, Gremillard L, et al. Structural transformations of bioactive glass 45S5 with thermal treatments. Acta Mater. 2007;55:3305-3313.
Boccaccini AR, Chen Q, Lefebvre L, Gremillard L, Chevalier J. Sintering, crystallization and biodegradation behaviour of bioglass®-derived glass-ceramics. Faraday Discuss. 2007;136:27-44.
Bretcanu O, Chatzistavrou X, Paraskevopoulos K, Conradt R, Thompson I, Boccaccini AR. Sintering and crystallization of 45S5 bioglass® powder. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2009;29:3299-3306.
Gupta S, Majumdar S, Krishnamurthy S. Bioactive glass: a multifunctional delivery system. J Control Release. 2021;335:481-497.
Galusková D, Kaňková H, Švančárková A, Galusek D. Early-stage dissolution kinetics of silicate-based bioactive glass under dynamic conditions: critical evaluation. Materials. 2021;14(12):3384.
Blaeß C, Müller R, Poologasundarampillai G, Brauer DS. Sintering and concomitant crystallization of bioactive glasses. Int J Appl Glass Sci. 2019;10(4):449-462.
Pedone A, Cannillo V, Menziani MC. Toward the understanding of crystallization, mechanical properties and reactivity of multicomponent bioactive glasses. Acta Mater. 2021;213:116977.
Mehrabi T, Mesgar AS, Mohammadi Z. Bioactive glasses: a promising therapeutic ion release strategy for enhancing wound healing. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2020;6(10):5399-5430.
Zhu H, Zheng K, Boccaccini AR. Multi-functional silica-based mesoporous materials for simultaneous delivery of biologically active ions and therapeutic biomolecules. Acta Biomater. 2021;129:1-17.
Vallet-Regi M, Salinas AJ. Mesoporous bioactive glasses for regenerative medicine. Mater Today Biol. 2021;11:100121.
Drago L, Toscano M, Bottagisio M. Recent evidence on bioactive glass antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity: a mini-review. Materials. 2018;11(2):326.
Diba M, Tapia F, Boccaccini AR. Magnesium-containing bioactive glasses for biomedical applications. Int J Appl Glass Sci. 2012;3:221-253.
Gentleman E, Fredholm YC, Jell G, et al. The effects of strontium-substituted bioactive glasses on osteoblasts and osteoclasts in vitro. Biomaterials. 2010;31:3949-3956.
Hoppe A, Güldal NS, Boccaccini AR. A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials. 2011;32:2757-2774.
Bellucci D, Cannillo V. A novel bioactive glass containing strontium and magnesium with ultra-high crystallization temperature. Mater Lett. 2018;213:67-70.
Bellucci D, Veronesi E, Strusi V, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cell combined with a new strontium-enriched bioactive glass: an ex-vivo model for bone regeneration. Materials. 2019;12:3633.
Bellucci D, Veronesi E, Dominici M, Cannillo V. A new bioactive glass with extremely high crystallization temperature and outstanding biological performance. Mater Sci Eng C. 2020;110:110699.
International Organization for Standardization. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 5: Tests for in Vitro Cytotoxicity; ISO 10993-5. ISO; 2009.
Kato Y, Windle JJ, Koop BA, Mundy GR, Bonewald LF. Establishment of an osteocyte-like cell kine, MLO-Y4. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;12:2014-2023.
Karadjian M, Essers C, Tsitlakidis S, et al. Biological properties of calcium phosphate bioactive glass composite bone substitutes: current experimental evidence. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:305.
Bellucci D, Salvatori R, Anesi A, Chiarini L, Cannillo V. SBF assays, direct and indirect cell culture tests to evaluate the biological performance of bioglasses and bioglass-based composites: three paradigmatic cases. Mater Sci Eng C. 2019;96:757-764.
International Organization for Standardization. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 12: Sample Preparation and Reference Materials; ISO 10993-12. ISO; 2012.
Jurtshuk P. Bacterial metabolism. In: Baron S, ed. Medical Microbiology. University of Texas Medical Branch; 1996.
Liu X, Rodeheaver DP, White JC, et al. A comparison of in vitro cytotoxicity assays in medical device regulatory studies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;97:24-32.
Liebsch M, Spielmann H. BALB/c 3T3 cytotoxicity test. In: O'Hare S, Atterwill CK, eds. Methods in Molecular Biology. Humana Press; 1995.
Czerwińska-Główka D, Krukiewicz K. Guidelines for a morphometric analysis of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells by scanning electron microscopy. Cell. 2021;10:3304.
Repetto G, del Peso A, Zurita JL. Neutral red uptake assay for the estimation of cell viability/cytotoxicity. Nat Protoc. 2008;3:1125-1131.
Wancket LM. Animal models for evaluation of bone implants and devices. Vet Pathol. 2015;52:842-850.
Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;13:1-10.
Schafrum Macedo A, Cezaretti Feitosa C, Yoiti Kitamura Kawamoto F, et al. Animal modeling in bone research-should we follow the white rabbit? Anim Model Exp Med. 2019;2:162-168.
Stacchi C, Vercellotti T, Torelli L, Furlan F, Di Lenarda R. Changes in implant stability using different site preparation techniques: twist drills versus piezosurgery. A single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15:188-197.
Anesi A, Di Bartolomeo M, Pellacani A, et al. Bone healing evaluation following different osteotomic techniques in animal models: a suitable method for clinical insights. Appl Sci. 2020;10:7165.
Anesi A, Ferretti M, Cavani F, et al. Structural and ultra-structural analyses of bone regeneration in rabbit cranial osteotomy: Piezosurgery versus traditional osteotomes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46:107-118.
Borenfreund E, Puerner JA. A simple quantitative procedure using monolayer culture for toxicity assays. J Tissue Cult Methods. 1984;9:7-9.
Berridge MV, Herst PM, Tan AS. Tetrazolium dyes as tools in cell biology: new in-sights into their cellular reduction. Biotechnol Annu Rev. 2005;11:127-152.
Wang H, Cheng H, Wang F, Wei D, Wang X. An improved 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction assay for evaluating the viability of Escherichia coli cells. J Microbiol Methods. 2010;82:330-333.
Goodwin CJ, Holt SJ, Downes S, Marshall NJ. Microculture tetrazolium assays: a comparison between two new tetrazolium salts, XTT and MTS. J Immunol Methods. 1995;179:95-103.
Hench LL. Bioceramics: from concepts to clinic. J Am Ceram Soc. 1991;74:1487-1510.
Hench LL. Bioceramics. J Am Ceram Soc. 1998;81:1705-1728.
Abiraman S, Varma HK, Kumari TV, Umashankar PR, John A. Preliminary in vitro and in vivo characterizations of a sol-gel derived bioactive glass-ceramic system. Bull Mater Sci. 2002;25:419-429.
Davies JE. The use of cell and tissue culture to investigate bone cell reactions to bioactive materials. In: Yamamuro T, Hench LL, Wilson J, eds. Handbook of Bioactive Ceramics. CRC Press; 1990.
Romanos GE. Biomolecular cell-signaling mechanisms and dental implants: a review on the regulatory molecular biologic patterns under functional and immediate loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(4):939-951.
Palumbo C, Ferretti M. The osteocyte: from “prisoner” to “orchestrator”. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021;6:28.
Hadjidakis DJ, Androulakis II. Bone remodeling. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1092:385-396.
Raggatt LJ, Partridge NC. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone remodeling. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:25103-25108.
Delaisse JM. The reversal phase of the bone-remodeling cycle: cellular prerequisites for coupling resorption and formation. Bonekey Rep. 2014;3:561.
Kenkre JS, Bassett JHD. The bone remodelling cycle. Ann Clin Biochem. 2018;55:308-327.
Ferretti M, Palumbo C. Static osteogenesis versus dynamic osteogenesis: a comparison between two different types of bone formation. Appl Sci. 2021;11:2025.
Traini T. The development of the alveolar bone by static osteogenesis: microanatomy and clinical implications. J Oral Surg. 2013;4:29-37.
Stein K, Prondvai E. Rethinking the nature of fibrolamellar bone: an integrative biological revision of sauropod plexiform bone formation. Biol Rev. 2014;89:24-47.
Prondvai E, Stein KHW, De Ricqlès A, Cubo J. Development-based revision of bone tissue classification: the importance of semantics for science. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 2014;112:799-816.
Cubo J, Hui M, Clarac F, Quilhac A. Static osteogenesis does not precede dynamic osteogenesis in periosteal ossification of Pleurodeles (Caudata, Amphibia) and Pogona (Squamata, Lepidosauria). J Morphol. 2017;278:621-628.
Boyde A, Riggs CM. The quantitative study of the orientation of collagen in compact bone slices. Bone. 1990;11:35-39.
Marotti G. The structure of bone tissues and the cellular control of their deposition. Ital J Anat Embryol. 1996;101:25-79.
Ascenzi MG, Lomovtsev A. Collagen orientation patterns in human secondary osteons, quantified in radial direction by confocal microscopy. J Struct Biol. 2006;153:14-30.
Ascenzi MG, Gill J, Lomovtsev A. Orientation of collagen at the osteocyte lacunae in human secondary osteons. J Biomech. 2008;41:3426-3435.
Marotti G, Ferretti M, Palumbo C. The problem of bone lamellation: an attempt to explain different proposed models. J Morphol. 2013;274:543-550.
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Human Experimental Technique. Methuen, UFAW; 1959. Accessed April 10, 2020. http://117.239.25.194:7000/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1342/1/PRILIMINERY%20%20AND%20%20CONTENTS.pdf
Annex to the Communication from the Commission on the European Citizen's Initiative. Stop Vivisection. European Commission; 2015. Accessed April 10, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/vivisection/en.pdf
Zhang L, Ke H, Lin L, et al. Systematic evaluation of the osteogenic capacity of low-melting bioactive glass-reinforced 45S5 bioglass porous scaffolds in rabbit femoral defects. Biomed Mater. 2017;12:035010.
Khan PK, Mahato A, Kundu B, et al. Influence of single and binary doping of strontium and lithium on in vivo biological properties of bioactive glass scaffolds. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32964.
El-Rashidya A, Roether J, Harhaus L, Kneser U, Boccaccini AR. Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: a review of in vivo studies in bone defect models. Acta Biomater. 2017;62:1-28.
Cannillo V, Leonelli C, Boccaccini AR. Numerical models for thermal residual stresses in Al2O3 platelets/borosilicate glass matrix composites. Mater Sci Eng A. 2002;323:246-250.
Cannillo V, Montorsi M, Siligardi C, et al. Microscale computational simulation and experimental measurement of thermal residual stresses in glass-alumina functionally graded materials. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2006;26:1411-1419.