Advertisement

Biomimetic porous silk fibroin/biphasic calcium phosphate scaffold for bone tissue regeneration

  • Bin Liu
  • Xiyuan Gao
  • Zhaozhong SunEmail author
  • Qingmin Fang
  • Xiaopeng Geng
  • Hanli Zhang
  • Guanglin Wang
  • Yongfeng Dou
  • Peng Hu
  • Kai Zhu
  • Dawei Wang
  • Jianqiang Xing
  • Dong Liu
  • Min Zhang
  • Rui Li
Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates

Abstract

The purpose of our study is to prepare a biomimetic porous silk fibroin (SF)/biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) scaffold, and evaluate its performance in bone tissue regeneration. The differences in pore size, porosity, mechanical strength and biocompatibility of four different fibroin-containing scaffolds (0, 20, 40, and 60% SF) were studied in vitro. After inoculation with MC3T3-E1 cells, the ectopic bone formation ability of the SF/BCP bionic scaffold was evaluated in a rat model. The SEM and CT demonstrated that compared with pure BCP group (0% SF), the pore size and porosity of SF/BCP scaffolds were proportional to SF content, of which 40% of SF and 60% of SF groups were more suitable for cell growth. The compressive strength of SF/BCP scaffold was greater than that of the pure BCP scaffold, and showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing with the increase of SF content, among which 40% of SF group had the maximum compressive strength (40.80 + 0.68) MPa. The SF/BCP scaffold had good biocompatibility, under the electron microscope, the cells can be smoothly attached to and propagated on the scaffold. After loading the osteoblasts, it showed excellent osteogenic capacity in the rat model. The SF/BCP scaffold can highly simulate the micro-environment of natural bone formation and can meet the requirements of tissue engineering.

The SF/BCP biomimetic porous scaffold has excellent physical properties and biocompatibility. It can highly simulate the natural bone matrix composition and microenvironment, and can promote the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblasts. The SF/BCP scaffold has good ectopic osteogenesis after loading with osteoblasts, which can meet the requirements of scaffold materials in tissue engineering, and has broad application prospects in clinical application.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81071450, 81371930).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Nukavarapu SP, Dorcemus DL. Osteochondral tissue engineering: current strategies and challenges. Biotechnol Adv. 2013;31:706–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sauerbier S, Duttenhoefer F, Sachlos E, Haberstroh J, Scheifele C, Wrbas KT, et al. Evaluation of bone substitute materials: comparison of flat-panel based volume CT to conventional multidetector CT. J Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 2013;41:e128–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen L, Liu HL, Gu Y, Feng Y, Yang HL. Lumbar interbody fusion with porous biphasic calcium phosphate enhanced by recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2/silk fibroin sustained-released microsphere: an experimental study on sheep model. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26:126  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5463-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharifi D, Khoushkerdar HR, Abedi G, Asghari A, Hesaraki S. Mechanical properties of radial bone defects treated with autogenous graft covered with hydroxyapatite in rabbit. Acta Cir Bras. 2012;27:256–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee EJ, Kasper FK, Mikos AG. Biomaterials for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;42:323–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0859-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paulo MJE, Dos Santos MA, Cimatti B, Gava NF, Riberto M, Engel EE. Osteointegration of porous absorbable bone substitutes: a systematic review of the literature. Clinics. 2017;72:449–53.  https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(07)10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turnbull G, Clarke J, Picard F, Riches P, Jia L, Han F, et al. 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Bioact Mater. 2018;3:278–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen L, Gu Y, Feng Y, Zhu XS, Wang CZ, Liu HL, et al. Bioactivity of porous biphasic calcium phosphate enhanced by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2/silk fibroin microsphere. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014;25:1709–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5194-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xie Y, Chopin D, Morin C, Hardouin P, Zhu Z, Tang J, et al. Evaluation of the osteogenesis and biodegradation of porous biphasic ceramic in the human spine. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2761–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hellmich C, Ulm FJ. Average hydroxyapatite concentration is uniform in the extracollagenous ultrastructure of mineralized tissues: evidence at the 1–10-microm scale. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2003;2:21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-002-0025-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeLustro F, Smith ST, Sundsmo J, Salem G, Kincaid S, Ellingsworth L. Reaction to injectable collagen: results in animal models and clinical use. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;79:581–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meade KR, Silver FH. Immunogenicity of collagenous implants. Biomaterials. 1990;11:176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mirza S, Zia I, Jolly R, Kazmi S, Owais M, Shakir M. Synergistic combination of natural bioadhesive bael fruit gum and chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite: a ternary bioactive nanohybrid for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;119:215–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.07.128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu NM, Chen Z, Liu X, Liu H, Lian X, Wang X, et al. Mechanical properties and in vitro bioactivity of injectable and self-setting calcium sulfate/nano-HA/collagen bone graft substitute. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012;12:119–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seyedmajidi S, Rajabnia R, Seyedmajidi M. Evaluation of antibacterial properties of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass and fluorapatite/bioactive glass nanocomposite foams as a cellular scaffold of bone tissue. J Lab Physicians. 2018;10:265–70.  https://doi.org/10.4103/JLP.JLP_167_17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    LeGeros RZ, Lin S, Rohanizadeh R, Mijares D, LeGeros JP. Biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics: preparation, properties and applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003;14:201–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li T, Peng M, Yang Z, Zhou X, Deng Y, Jiang C, et al. 3D-printed IFN-gamma-loading calcium silicate-beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold sequentially activates M1 and M2 polarization of macrophages to promote vascularization of tissue engineering bone. Acta Biomater. 2018;71:96–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bouler JM, Pilet P, Gauthier O, Verron E. Biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for bone reconstruction: a review of biological response. Acta Biomater. 2017;53:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ebrahimi M, Pripatnanont P, Suttapreyasri S, Monmaturapoj N. In vitro biocompatibility analysis of novel nano-biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds in different composition ratios. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014;102:52–61.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ayoub NA, Garb JE, Tinghitella RM, Collin MA, Hayashi CY. Blueprint for a high-performance biomaterial: full-length spider dragline silk genes. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e514  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruan SQ, Yan L, Deng J, Huang WL, Jiang DM. Preparation of a biphase composite scaffold and its application in tissue engineering for femoral osteochondral defects in rabbits. Int Orthop. 2017;41:1899–908.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3522-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofmann S, Stok KS, Kohler T, Meinel AJ, Muller R. Effect of sterilization on structural and material properties of 3-D silk fibroin scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:308–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.08.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ye P, Yu B, Deng J, She RF, Huang WL. Application of silk fibroin/chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite composite scaffold in the repair of rabbit radial bone defect. Exp Ther Med. 2017;14:5547–53.  https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.5231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim S, Jung UW, Lee YK, Choi SH. Effects of biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitute on circumferential bone defects around dental implants in dogs. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:265–73.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gu Y, Chen L, Niu HY, Shen XF, Yang HL. Promoting spinal fusions by biomineralized silk fibroin films seeded with bone marrow stromal cells: an in vivo animal study. J Biomater Appl. 2016;30:1251–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328215620067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kasoju N, Bora U. Silk fibroin in tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater. 2012;1:393–412.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201200097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang Y, Hao H, Zhang S. Biomimetic coprecipitation of silk fibrin and calcium phosphate: influence of selenite ions. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017;178:338–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-0933-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hulbert SF, Morrison SJ, Klawitter JJ. Tissue reaction to three ceramics of porous and non-porous structures. J Biomed Mater Res. 1972;6:347–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820060505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loty C, Sautier JM, Boulekbache H, Kokubo T, Kim HM, Forest N. In vitro bone formation on a bone-like apatite layer prepared by a biomimetic process on a bioactive glass-ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;49:423–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lu JX, Flautre B, Anselme K, Hardouin P, Gallur A, Descamps M, et al. Role of interconnections in porous bioceramics on bone recolonization in vitro and in vivo. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999;10:111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feng G, Qin C, Yi X, Xia J, Chen J, Chen X, et al. Effect of novel bioresorbable scaffold composed of poly-L-lactic acid and amorphous calcium phosphate nanoparticles on inflammation and calcification of surrounding tissues after implantation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2018;29:112  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-018-6125-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nadezhdin SV, Zubareva EV, Burda YE, Kolobov YR, Ivanov MB, Khramov GV, et al. Influence of implants surface properties on bone tissue formation in the ectopic osteogenesis test. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2017;162:812–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10517-017-3719-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Filipowska J, Cholewa-Kowalska K, Wieczorek J, Semik D, Dabrowski Z, Laczka M, et al. Ectopic bone formation by gel-derived bioactive glass-poly-L-lactide-co-glycolide composites in a rabbit muscle model. Biomed Mater. 2017;12:015015  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/aa4eb7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bin Liu
    • 1
  • Xiyuan Gao
    • 1
  • Zhaozhong Sun
    • 1
    Email author
  • Qingmin Fang
    • 1
  • Xiaopeng Geng
    • 1
  • Hanli Zhang
    • 1
  • Guanglin Wang
    • 1
  • Yongfeng Dou
    • 1
  • Peng Hu
    • 1
  • Kai Zhu
    • 1
  • Dawei Wang
    • 1
  • Jianqiang Xing
    • 1
  • Dong Liu
    • 1
  • Min Zhang
    • 1
  • Rui Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Spine SurgeryAffiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical UniversityBinzhou CityP. R. China

Personalised recommendations