, Volume 26, Issue 18, pp 9803–9817 | Cite as

Production of hydroxyapatite–bacterial cellulose composite scaffolds with enhanced pore diameters for bone tissue engineering applications

  • Ece Bayir
  • Eyup Bilgi
  • E. Esin Hames
  • Aylin SendemirEmail author
Original Research


Bone tissue engineering scaffolds used for the treatment of bone defects are required to be osteoconductive, osteoinductive, osteogenic, biocompatible, and have enough porosity to allow osteointegration, as well as vascularization. It is known that addition of the hydroxyapatite (HAp) to bone tissue scaffolds promotes bone formation by increasing osteoconductivity. Bacterial cellulose (BC) is a highly biocompatible material, and its mechanical properties and fibrous structure allow that it can be used as a bone tissue scaffold; yet, the nano-porous structure of BC (50–200 nm) prevents or limits cell migration and vascularization. In this study, it is intended to take advantage of the porous structure and mechanical strength of BC and osteoconductive properties of HAp for the production of tissue engineering scaffolds. Pore sizes of BC were enhanced to 275 μm by a novel shredded agar technique, and SaOs-2 cells were shown to migrate between the fibers of the modified BC. It was observed that mineralization of SaOs-2 cells was enhanced on in situ produced HAp-BC nano-composites compared to BC scaffolds.

Graphic abstract


Bacterial cellulose Hydroxyapatite Nano-composite Porosity Bone tissue engineering scaffold 



This work was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) through COST project (113M243) and TUBITAK 2211-C Domestic Graduate Scholarship Program and Ege University Scientific Research Projects Council (13FBE008) and Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development [EGE MATAL; 2010K120810]. The authors thank Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM) and Assist. Prof. Serçin Karahüseyinoğlu for the use of the confocal microscopy.


  1. Ahn S-J et al (2015) Characterization of hydroxyapatite-coated bacterial cellulose scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Biotechnol Bioproc E 20:948–955Google Scholar
  2. An J, Teoh JEM, Suntornnond R, Chua CK (2015) Design and 3D printing of scaffolds and tissues. Eng Lond 1:261–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkharova NA, Suvorova EI, Severin AV, Khripunov AK, Krasheninnikov SV, Klechkovskaya VV (2016) SEM and TEM for structure and properties characterization of bacterial cellulose/hydroxyapatite composites. Scanning 38:757–765PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bäckdahl H, Helenius G, Bodin A, Nannmark U, Johansson BR, Risberg B, Gatenholm P (2006) Mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose and interactions with smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials 27:2141–2149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bäckdahl H, Esguerra M, Delbro D, Risberg B, Gatenholm P (2008) Engineering microporosity in bacterial cellulose scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen M 2:320–330Google Scholar
  6. Barsberg S (2010) Prediction of vibrational spectra of polysaccharides—simulated IR spectrum of cellulose based on density functional theory (DFT). J Phys Chem B 114:11703–11708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bielecki S, Krystynowicz A, Turkiewicz M, Kalinowska H (2005) Bacterial cellulose. Biopolymers Online: Biology Chemistry Biotechnology Applications, Part 5 Polysaccharides.
  8. Bilgi E (2015) Production of natural facial mask from bacterial cellulose. Dissertation, Ege UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilton M, Milne SJ, Brown AP (2012) Comparison of hydrothermal and sol-gel synthesis of nano-particulate hydroxyapatite by characterisation at the bulk and particle level. Open J Inorg Non-Met Mater 2:1Google Scholar
  10. Bonfield W (2006) Designing porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Philos Trans R Soc A 364:227–232Google Scholar
  11. Bose S, Roy M, Bandyopadhyay A (2012) Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 30:546–554. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Boskey AL (2013) Bone composition: relationship to bone fragility and antiosteoporotic drug effects. BoneKEy Rep 2:447PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen S-Q, Lopez-Sanchez P, Wang D, Mikkelsen D, Gidley MJ (2018) Mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose synthesised by diverse strains of the genus Komagataeibacter. Food Hydrocolloids 81:87–95Google Scholar
  14. Cheng K-C, Catchmark JM, Demirci A (2009) Enhanced production of bacterial cellulose by using a biofilm reactor and its material property analysis. J Biol Eng 3:12PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Cintrón MS, Hinchliffe DJ (2015) FT-IR examination of the development of secondary cell wall in cotton fibers. Fibers 3:30–40Google Scholar
  16. Czaja WK, Young DJ, Kawecki M, Brown RM (2007) The future prospects of microbial cellulose in biomedical applications. Biomacromolecules 8:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Du R, Zhao F, Peng Q, Zhou Z, Han Y (2018) Production and characterization of bacterial cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus isolated from Chinese persimmon vinegar. Carbohydr Polym 194:200–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Duarte EB et al (2015) Production of hydroxyapatite–bacterial cellulose nanocomposites from agroindustrial wastes. Cellulose 22:3177–3187Google Scholar
  19. Fang B, Wan Y-Z, Tang T-T, Gao C, Dai K-R (2009) Proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells on hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose nanocomposite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Pt A 15:1091–1098Google Scholar
  20. Favi PM, Ospina SP, Kachole M, Gao M, Atehortua L, Webster TJ (2016) Preparation and characterization of biodegradable nano hydroxyapatite–bacterial cellulose composites with well-defined honeycomb pore arrays for bone tissue engineering applications. Cellulose 23:1263–1282Google Scholar
  21. Gleeson J, Plunkett N, O’Brien F (2010) Addition of hydroxyapatite improves stiffness, interconnectivity and osteogenic potential of a highly porous collagen-based scaffold for bone tissue regeneration. Eur Cells Mater 20:218–230Google Scholar
  22. Grande CJ, Torres FG, Gomez CM, Carmen Bañó M (2009) Nanocomposites of bacterial cellulose/hydroxyapatite for biomedical applications. Acta Biomater 5:1605–1615. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffon DJ, Sedighi MR, Schaeffer DV, Eurell JA, Johnson AL (2006) Chitosan scaffolds: interconnective pore size and cartilage engineering. Acta Biomater 2:313–320. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammonds R, Harrison M, Cravanas T, Gazzola W, Stephens C, Benson R (2012) Biomimetic hydroxyapatite powder from a bacterial cellulose scaffold. Cellulose 19:1923–1932Google Scholar
  25. Helenius G, Bäckdahl H, Bodin A, Nannmark U, Gatenholm P, Risberg B (2006) In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. J Biomed Mater Res A 76:431–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hestrin S, Schramm M (1954) Synthesis of cellulose by Acetobacter xylinum. 2. Preparation of freeze-dried cells capable of polymerizing glucose to cellulose. Biochem J 58:345PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4:518–524PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Holmes RE (1979) Bone regeneration within a coralline hydroxyapatite implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 63:626–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hong L, Wang Y, Jia S, Huang Y, Gao C, Wan Y (2006) Hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose composites synthesized via a biomimetic route. Mater Lett 60:1710–1713Google Scholar
  30. Hu Y, Catchmark JM (2011) In vitro biodegradability and mechanical properties of bioabsorbable bacterial cellulose incorporating cellulases. Acta Biomater 7:2835–2845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hutchens SA, Benson RS, Evans BR, O’Neill HM, Rawn CJ (2006) Biomimetic synthesis of calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite in a natural hydrogel. Biomaterials 27:4661–4670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21:2529–2543PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Ikada Y (2006) Challenges in tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface 3:589–601PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ikada Y (2011) Tissue engineering: fundamentals and applications, vol 8. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Jain RK, Au P, Tam J, Duda DG, Fukumura D (2005) Engineering vascularized tissue. Nat Biotechnol 23:821–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Jose MV, Thomas V, Johnson KT, Dean DR, Nyairo E (2009) Aligned PLGA/HA nanofibrous nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 5:305–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Jose MV, Thomas V, Xu Y, Bellis S, Nyairo E, Dean D (2010) Aligned bioactive multi-component nanofibrous nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Macromol Biosci 10:433–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26:5474–5491. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Krystynowicz A, Bielecki S, Czaja W, Rzyska M (2000) Application of bacterial cellulose for clarification of fruit juices. Progr Biotechnol 17:323–327Google Scholar
  40. Laurencin CT, Attawia MA, Lu LQ, Borden MD, Lu HH, Gorum WJ, Lieberman JR (2001) Poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite delivery of BMP-2-producing cells: a regional gene therapy approach to bone regeneration. Biomaterials 22:1271–1277. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Li X, Wang L, Fan Y, Feng Q, Cui FZ, Watari F (2013) Nanostructured scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 101:2424–2435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin W-C, Lien C-C, Yeh H-J, Yu C-M, Hsu S-h (2013) Bacterial cellulose and bacterial cellulose–chitosan membranes for wound dressing applications. Carbohydr Polym 94:603–611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu Y (2013) Recent progress in fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy study of compositional, structural and physical attributes of developmental cotton fibers. Materials 6:299–313PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu X, Ma PX (2004) Polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 32:477–486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lloyd A (2004) Bacterial cellulose scaffolds for cartilage repair: tissue engineering. Mater Today 7:28Google Scholar
  46. Loh QL, Choong C (2013) Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Pt B Rev 19:485–502Google Scholar
  47. Martins IM, Magina SP, Oliveira L, Freire CS, Silvestre AJ, Neto CP, Gandini A (2009) New biocomposites based on thermoplastic starch and bacterial cellulose. Compos Sci Technol 69:2163–2168Google Scholar
  48. Novosel EC, Kleinhans C, Kluger PJ (2011) Vascularization is the key challenge in tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63:300–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Numata Y, Kono H, Tsuji M, Tajima K (2017) Structural and mechanical characterization of bacterial cellulose–polyethylene glycol diacrylate composite gels. Carbohydr Polym 173:67–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Peng F, Yu X, Wei M (2011) In vitro cell performance on hydroxyapatite particles/poly(l-lactic acid) nanofibrous scaffolds with an excellent particle along nanofiber orientation. Acta Biomater 7:2585–2592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Petersen N, Gatenholm P (2011) Bacterial cellulose-based materials and medical devices: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1277Google Scholar
  52. Polo-Corrales L, Latorre-Esteves M, Ramirez-Vick JE (2014) Scaffold design for bone regeneration. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 14:15–56PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Rajwade J, Paknikar K, Kumbhar J (2015) Applications of bacterial cellulose and its composites in biomedicine. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:2491–2511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Rambo C, Recouvreux D, Carminatti C, Pitlovanciv A, Antônio R, Porto L (2008) Template assisted synthesis of porous nanofibrous cellulose membranes for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater 28:549–554Google Scholar
  55. Ramtani S, Zidi M (1999) Damaged-bone remodeling theory: thermodynamical approach. Mech Res Commun 26:701–708Google Scholar
  56. Raucci MG, Guarino V, Ambrosio L (2012) Biomimetic strategies for bone repair and regeneration. J Funct Biomater 3:688–705PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Ripamonti U, Ma S, Reddi AH (1992) The critical role of geometry of porous hydroxyapatite delivery system in induction of bone by osteogenin, a bone morphogenetic protein. Matrix 12:202–212. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Saska S, Barud H, Gaspar A, Marchetto R, Ribeiro SJL, Messaddeq Y (2011) Bacterial cellulose–hydroxyapatite nanocomposites for bone regeneration. Int J Biomater. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Sendemir-Urkmez A, Jamison RD (2007) The addition of biphasic calcium phosphate to porous chitosan scaffolds enhances bone tissue development in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A 81:624–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Shi Q et al (2012) The osteogenesis of bacterial cellulose scaffold loaded with bone morphogenetic protein-2. Biomaterials 33:6644–6649. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ślósarczyk A, Paszkiewicz Z, Paluszkiewicz C (2005) FTIR and XRD evaluation of carbonated hydroxyapatite powders synthesized by wet methods. J Mol Struct 744:657–661Google Scholar
  62. Sreedhar B, Aparna Y, Sairam M, Hebalkar N (2007) Preparation and characterization of HAP/carboxymethyl chitosan nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 105:928–934Google Scholar
  63. Suárez-González D, Barnhart K, Saito E, Vanderby R Jr, Hollister SJ, Murphy WL (2010) Controlled nucleation of hydroxyapatite on alginate scaffolds for stem cell-based bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 95:222–234PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Swetha M, Sahithi K, Moorthi A, Srinivasan N, Ramasamy K, Selvamurugan N (2010) Biocomposites containing natural polymers and hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 47:1–4PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Tazi N, Zhang Z, Messaddeq Y, Almeida-Lopes L, Zanardi LM, Levinson D, Rouabhia M (2012) Hydroxyapatite bioactivated bacterial cellulose promotes osteoblast growth and the formation of bone nodules. AMB Express 2:1Google Scholar
  66. Thomas S, Visakh PM, Mathew AP (eds) (2013) Advances in natural polymers. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 255–312Google Scholar
  67. Torgbo S, Sukyai P (2018) Bacterial cellulose-based scaffold materials for bone tissue engineering. Appl Mater Today 11:34–49Google Scholar
  68. Van Bael S et al (2012) The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum-derived cells seeded on selective laser-melted Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomater 8:2824–2834. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wan Y, Hong L, Jia S, Huang Y, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Jiang H (2006) Synthesis and characterization of hydroxyapatite–bacterial cellulose nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 66:1825–1832Google Scholar
  70. Wan Y et al (2007) Biomimetic synthesis of hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose nanocomposites for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater 27:855–864Google Scholar
  71. Xiong G, Luo H, Gu F, Zhang J, Hu D, Wan Y (2013) A novel in vitro three-dimensional macroporous scaffolds from bacterial cellulose for culture of breast cancer cells. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol 4:316Google Scholar
  72. Xiong G, Luo H, Zhang C, Zhu Y, Wan Y (2015) Enhanced biological behavior of bacterial cellulose scaffold by creation of macropores and surface immobilization of collagen. Macromol Res 23:734–740Google Scholar
  73. Zaborowska M, Bodin A, Bäckdahl H, Popp J, Goldstein A, Gatenholm P (2010) Microporous bacterial cellulose as a potential scaffold for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 6:2540–2547PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Technologies, Graduate School of Natural and Applied ScienceEge UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Ege University Central Research Test and Analysis Laboratories Research and Application Center (EGE-MATAL)IzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Bioengineering, Faculty of EngineeringEge UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations