Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology

, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 83–93 | Cite as

Synthesis of novel nanostructured bredigite–amoxicillin scaffolds for bone defect treatment: cytocompatibility and antibacterial activity

  • H. R. Bakhsheshi-Rad
  • E. Hamzah
  • N. Abbasizadeh
  • A. Najafinezhad
  • M. Kashefian
Original Paper: Nano-structured materials (particles, fibers, colloids, composites, etc.)
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Bone infections in human beings are an essentially destructive problem with crucial clinical and economic effects; thus, incorporation of antibiotics such as amoxicillin (AMX) into the scaffold was developed as an effective treatment for bone infections. In this respect, we develop new nanostructured bredigite (Bre; Ca7MgSi4O16)–amoxicillin (AMX; α-amino-hydroxybenzyl-penicillin) scaffolds containing different concentrations of amoxicillin (0, 3, 5, and 10%) by using space holder method to assure bactericidal properties. The result depicted that the Bre–AMX scaffolds possess porosity of 80–82% with high compressive strength of 1.2–1.4 MPa and controlled antibiotic release for prevention of infection. Bre–(3–10%)AMX scaffolds were able to destroy Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, as well as effectively inhibit the growth of bacterial cells; in addition, the antibacterial activity of the AMX-loaded scaffolds augmented with the increase of the AMX concentration. Sustained drug release was detected from Bre–AMX scaffolds accompanied by initial burst release of 20% for 8 h, followed by a sustained release, which is favorable for bone infection treatment. These new Bre–(3–5%)AMX scaffolds possess excellent mechanical properties and antibacterial activity with no cytotoxicity suggested as an appropriate alternative for bone infection treatment.

Keywords

Bredigite scaffold Amoxicillin Cytocompatibility Drug release Antimicrobial activity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for providing financial support and facilities for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sadeghzade S, Shamoradi F et al. (2017) Fabrication and characterization of baghdadite anostructured scaffolds by space holder method. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 68:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kariem H, Pastrama M-I et al. (2015) Micro-poro-elasticity of baghdadite-based bone tissue engineering scaffolds: a unifying approach based on ultrasonics, nanoindentation, and homogenization theory. Mater Sci Eng C 46:553–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roohani-Esfahani S-I, Chen Y et al. (2013) Fabrication and characterization of a new, strong and bioactive ceramic scaffold for bone regeneration. Mater Lett 107:378–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eilbagi M, Emadi R et al. (2016) Mechanical and cytotoxicity evaluation of nanostructured hydroxyapatite-bredigite scaffolds for bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C 68:603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zreiqat H, Ramaswamy Y et al. (2010) The incorporation of strontium and zinc into a calcium–silicon ceramic for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 31:3175–3184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olalde B, Garmendia N et al. (2013) Multifunctional bioactive glass scaffolds coated with layers of poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) and poly(n-isopropylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid) microgels loaded with vancomycin. Mater Sci Eng C 33:3760–3767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schumacher TC, Volkmann E et al. (2014) Mechanical evaluation of calcium-zirconium-silicate (baghdadite) obtained by a direct solid-state synthesis route. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 34:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhai W, Lu H et al. (2013) Stimulatory effects of the ionic products from Ca–Mg–Si bioceramics on both osteogenesis and angiogenesis in vitro. Acta Biomater 9:8004–8014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diba M, Goudouri O-M et al. (2014) Magnesium-containing bioactive polycrystalline silicate-based ceramics and glass-ceramics for biomedical applications. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 18:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tavangarian F, Emadi R (2011) Mechanism of nanostructure bredigite formation by mechanical activation with thermal treatment. Mater Lett 65:2354–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antoci JV, Adams CS et al. (2008) The inhibition of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation by vancomycin-modified titanium alloy and implications for the treatment of periprosthetic infection. Biomaterials 29:4684–4690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rumian Ł, Tiainen H et al. (2017) Ceramic scaffolds with immobilized vancomycin-loaded poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microparticles for bone defects treatment. Mater Lett 190:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    García-Alvarez R, Izquierdo-Barba I et al. (2017) 3D scaffold with effective multidrug sequential release against bacteria biofilm. Acta Biomater 49:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parent M, Magnaudeix A et al. (2016) Hydroxyapatite microporous bioceramics as vancomycin reservoir: antibacterial efficiency and biocompatibility investigation. J Biomater Appl 31:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang S, Zheng F et al. (2012) Encapsulation of amoxicillin within laponite-doped poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanofibers: preparation, characterization, and antibacterial activity. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 4:6393–6401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Songsurang K, Pakdeebumrung J et al. (2011) Sustained release of amoxicillin from ethyl cellulose-coated amoxicillin/chitosan–cyclodextrin-based tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech 12:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sadeghpoura S, Amirjanib A, Hafezib M, Zamanian N,A (2017) Fabrication of a novel nanostructured calcium zirconium silicate scaffolds prepared by a freeze-casting method for bone tissue engineering. Ceram Int 40:16107–16114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iviglia G, Cassinelli C et al. (2016) Engineered porous scaffolds for periprosthetic infection prevention. Mater Sci Eng C 68:701–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghomi H, Emadi R et al. (2016) Fabrication and characterization of nanostructure diopside scaffolds using the space holder method: effect of different space holders and compaction pressures. Mater Des 91:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Unnithan AR, Nejad AG et al. (2016) Electrospun zwitterionic nanofibers with in situ decelerated epithelialization property for non-adherent and easy removable wound dressing application. Chem Eng J 287:640–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mirahmadi F, Tafazzoli-Shadpour M et al. (2013) Enhanced mechanical properties of thermosensitive chitosan hydrogel by silk fibers for cartilage tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C 33:4786–4794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williamson GK (1953) X-ray line broadening from filed aluminium and wolfram. Acta Metall 1:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mirhadi SM, Tavangarian F et al. (2012) Synthesis, characterization and formation mechanism of single-phase nanostructure bredigite powder. Mater Sci Eng C 32:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sabree I, Gough JE, Derby B (2015) Mechanical properties of porous ceramic scaffolds: influence of internal dimensions. Ceram Int 41:8425–8432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salma-Ancane K, Stipniece L, Putnins A, Berzina-Cimdin L (2015) Development of Mg-containing porous β-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds for bone repair. Ceram Int 41:4996–5004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khodaei M, Meratian M, Savabi O (2015) Effect of spacer type and cold compaction pressure on structural and mechanical properties of porous titanium scaffold. Powder Metall 58:152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roohani-Esfahani S-I, Nouri-Khorasani S, Lu Z, Appleyard R, Zreiqat H (2010) The influence hydroxyapatite nanoparticle shape and size on the properties of biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds coated with hydroxyapatite–PCL composites. Biomaterials 31:5498–5509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu C, Chang J et al. (2005) Preparation and characteristics of a calcium magnesium silicate (bredigite) bioactive ceramic. Biomaterials 26:2925–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lopes JH, Magalhães JA, Gouveia RF, Bertran CA, Motisuke M, Camargo SEA, Trichês EdS (2016) Hierarchical structures of β-TCP/45S5 bioglass hybrid scaffolds prepared by gelcasting J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 62:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salim MM, Malek NANN (2016) Characterization and antibacterial activity of silver exchanged regenerated NaY zeolite from surfactant-modified NaY zeolite. Mater Sci Eng C 59:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sangeetha K, Yokogawa Y, Girija EK (2015) A facile strategy to elute amoxicillin in a controlled way from hydroxyapatite-gelatin composite. Adv Mater Lett 6:1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zheng F, Wang S et al. (2013) Characterization and antibacterial activity of amoxicillin-loaded electrospun nano-hydroxyapatite/poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) composite nanofibers. Biomaterials 34:1402–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Furtos G, Rivero G, Rapuntean S, Abraham GA (2017) Amoxicillin-loaded electrospun nanocomposite membranes for dental applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 105:966–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Diba M, Kharaziha M et al. (2012) Preparation and characterization of polycaprolactone/forsterite nanocomposite porous scaffolds designed for bone tissue regeneration. Compos Sci Technol 72:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang S, Castro R et al. (2012) Electrospun laponite-doped poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanofibers for osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. J Mater Chem 22:23357–23367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ghadiri S, Hassanzadeh-Tabrizi SA, Bigham A (2017) The effect of synthesis medium on structure and drug delivery behavior of CTAB-assisted sol–gel derived nanoporous calcium–magnesium–silicate. J Sol Gel Sci Technol 83:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vassilakopoulou A, Dimos K, Kostas V, Karakassides MA, Koutselas I (2016) Synthesis and characterization of calcium oxyboroapatite with bimodal porosity. J Sol Gel Sci Technol 78:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hendrikx S, Kuzmenka D, Köferstein R et al. (2017) Effects of curing and organic content on bioactivity and mechanical properties of hybrid sol–gel glass scaffolds made by indirect rapid prototyping. J Sol Gel Sci Technol 83:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ghomi H, Fathi MH, Edris H (2011) Preparation of nanostructure hydroxyapatite scaffold for tissue engineering applications. J Sol Gel Sci Technol 58:642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bakhsheshi-Rad HR, Hamzah E, Ismail AF, Aziz M, Daroonparvar M, Saebnoori E, Chami A (2018) In vitro degradation behavior, antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity of TiO2 -MAO/ZnHA composite coating on Mg alloy for orthopedic implants. Surf Coat Technol 334:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bakhsheshi-Rad HR, Hamzah E, Tok HY, Kasiri-Asgaran M, Jabbarzare S, Medraj M (2017) Microstructure, In Vitro Corrosion Behavior and Cytotoxicity of Biodegradable Mg-Ca-Zn and Mg-Ca-Zn-Bi Alloys. J Mater Eng Perform 26:653–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. R. Bakhsheshi-Rad
    • 1
  • E. Hamzah
    • 2
  • N. Abbasizadeh
    • 3
  • A. Najafinezhad
    • 1
  • M. Kashefian
    • 3
  1. 1.Advanced Materials Research Center, Department of Materials Engineering, Najafabad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityNajafabadIran
  2. 2.Department of Materials, Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia
  3. 3.Biomaterials Group, Faculty of New Science and TechnologiesUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations