Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 181–191 | Cite as

Preparation and characterization of boron-based bioglass by sol−gel process

  • Roberto Gustavo Furlan
  • Wagner Raphael Correr
  • Ana Flavia Costa Russi
  • Mônica Rosas da Costa Iemma
  • Eliane TrovattiEmail author
  • Édison Pecoraro
Original Paper: Sol–gel and hybrid materials for biological and health (medical) applications


45S5 bioglass has been widely studied in the last few decades because of its bioactivity and promising applications in the biomedical field. Boron, even few studied, represents a potential element to improve the properties of the 45S5 bioglass derivatives. The bioglasses are conventionally prepared by heat treatment of oxides and silicon. Here, the sol−gel method is proposed for the preparation of the boron-based 45S5 bioglass (45S5B) and the classical 45S5 bioglass (45S5), using water-soluble salts as raw materials. The bioglasses were characterized by FTIR, XRD, and SEM, indicating the success of the sol−gel method for preparation of the samples. The bioglasses were also tested in vitro for bioactivity in biological conditions and cytotoxicity against eukaryotic cells. The bioactivity of 45S5B was similar to the bioactivity of 45S5 bioglass, indicated by the deposition of hydroxyapatite crystals at the surface of the pristine bioglasses. The results of cytotoxicity tests revealed that the IC50 of 45S5B (IC50 = 7.56 mg mL−1) was similar to the IC50 of 45S5 (IC50 = 8.15 mg mL−1), indicating its safety for application in the biomedical field.


  • The sol−gel process was used to prepare boron-based bioglass from water-soluble salts.

  • The bioactivity of the boron-based bioglass was similar to the conventional bioglass.

  • The boron-based bioglass and 45S5 bioglass showed high in vitro bioactivity.

  • The boron-based bioglass was not cytotoxic against OSTEO-1 eukaryotic cells.


Boron 45S5 Bioglass Cytotoxicity in vitro OSTEO-1 cells 



The authors acknowledge Capes for RGF doctoral fellowship, Fundação Nacional de Desenvolvimento do Ensino Superior Particular (FUNADESP), and University of Araraquara (UNIARA) for funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Farr JN, Khosla S (2015) Skeletal changes through the lifespan—from growth to senescence. Nat Rev Endocrinol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sheikh Z, Hamdan N, Ikeda Y, Grynpas M, Ganss B, Glogauer M (2017) Natural graft tissues and synthetic biomaterials for periodontal and alveolar bone reconstructive applications: a review Biomater Res 21:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Habraken W, Habibovic P, Epple M, Bohner M (2016) Calcium phosphates in biomedical applications: materials for the future? Mater Today 19:69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lanza RP, Langer RS, Vacanti J (eds) In Principles of tissue engineering (2014), Elsevier, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodella LF, Favero G, Labanca M (2011) Biomaterials in maxillofacial surgery: Membranes and grafts. Int J Biomed Sci 7:81–88Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wenz B, Oesch B, Horst M (2001) Analysis of the risk of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy through bone grafts derived from bovine bone. Biomaterials 22:1599–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Šupová M (2015) Substituted hydroxyapatites for biomedical applications: a review. Ceram Int 41:9203–9231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hench LL, Splinter RJ, Allen WC, Greenlee TK (1971) Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials. J Biomed Mater Res 5:117–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hench LL (2006) The story of Bioglass®. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 17:967–978Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shankhwar N, Srinivasan A (2016) Evaluation of sol−gel based magnetic 45S5 bioglass and bioglass-ceramics containing iron oxide. Mater Sci Eng C 62:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soubelet CG, Albano MP, Conconi MS (2018) Sintering, microstructure and hardness of Y-TZP- 64S bioglass ceramics. Ceram Int 44:4868–4874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pazarçeviren AE, Tahmasebifar A, Tezcaner A, Keskin D, Evis Z (2018) Investigation of bismuth doped bioglass/graphene oxide nanocomposites for bone tissue engineering. Ceram Int 44:3791–3799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Kokubo T, Kim HM, Kawashita M (2003) Novel bioactive materials with different mechanical properties. Biomaterials 24:2161–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lucacel Ciceo R, Trandafir DL, Radu T, Ponta O, Simon V (2014) Synthesis, characterisation and in vitro evaluation of sol-gel derived SiO2-P2O5-CaO-B2O3 bioactive system. Ceram Int 40:9517–9524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fu Q, Rahaman MN, Fu H, Liu X (2010) Silicate, borosilicate, and borate bioactive glass scaffolds with controllable degradation rate for bone tissue engineering applications. I. Preparation and in vitro degradation. J Biomed Mater Res—Part A 95:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassan EA, Hassan ML, Oksman K (2011) Improving bagasse pulp paper sheet properties with microfibrillated cellulose isolated from xylanase-treated bagasse. Wood Fiber Sci 43:76–82Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang X, Zhang L, Chen X, Sun X, Yang G, Guo X, Yang H, Gao C, Gou Z (2012) Incorporation of B2O3in CaO-SiO2-P2O5 bioactive glass system for improving strength of low-temperature co-fired porous glass ceramics. J Non Cryst Solids 358:1171–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fu H, Fu Q, Zhou N, Huang W, Rahaman MN, Wang D, Liu X (2009) In vitro evaluation of borate-based bioactive glass scaffolds prepared by a polymer foam replication method. Mater Sci Eng C 29:2275–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bi L, Rahaman MN, Day DE, Brown Z, Samujh C, Liu X, Mohammadkhah A, Dusevich V, Eick JD, Bonewald LF (2013) Effect of bioactive borate glass microstructure on bone regeneration, angiogenesis, and hydroxyapatite conversion in a rat calvarial defect model. Acta Biomater 9:8015–8026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin Y, Brown RF, Jung SB, Day DE (2014) Angiogenic effects of borate glass microfibers in a rodent model. J Biomed Mater Res—Part A 102:4491–4499Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deliormanli AM (2013) Size-dependent degradation and bioactivity of borate bioactive glass. Ceram Int 39:8087–8095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haro Durand LA, Vargas GE, Romero NM, Vera-Mesones R, Porto-López JM, Boccaccini AR, Zago MP, Baldi A, Gorustovich A (2015) Angiogenic effects of ionic dissolution products released from a boron-doped 45S5 bioactive glass. J Mater Chem B 3:1142–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shah FA, Czechowska J (2018) 9—Bioactive glass and glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. In: Bioactive glasses, pp 201–233. Ed. Heimo Ylänen. Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, second edition, Kidlington, UK, 2018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Balasubramanian P, Grünewald A, Detsch R, Hupa L, Jokic B, Tallia F, Solanki AK, Jones JR, Boccaccini AR (2016) Ion release, hydroxyapatite conversion, and cytotoxicity of boron-containing bioactive glass scaffolds. Int J Appl Glas Sci 7:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li R, Clark AE, Hench LL (1991) An investigation of bioactive glass powders by sol-gel processing. J Appl Biomater 2:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pirayesh H, Nychka JA (2013) Sol-gel synthesis of bioactive glass-ceramic 45S5 and its in vitro dissolution and mineralization behavior. J Am Ceram Soc 96:1643–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kamitsos EI (2003) Infrared studies of borate glasses. Phys Chem Glas—Eur J Glas Sci Technol Part B 44:79–87Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kamitsos EI, Patsis AP, Karakassides MA, Chryssikos GD (1990) Infrared reflectance spectra of lithium borate glasses. J Non Cryst Solids 126:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ouis MA, Abdelghany AM, ElBatal HA (2012) Corrosion mechanism and bioactivity of borate glasses analogue to Hench’s bioglass. Process Appl Ceram 6:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pham TTT, Nguyen TP, Pham TN, Vu TP, Tran DL, Thai H, Dinh TMT (2013) Impact of physical and chemical parameters on the hydroxyapatite nanopowder synthesized by chemical precipitation method Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol 4:1–9Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kültz D, Chakravarty D (2001) Hyperosmolality in the form of elevated NaCl but not urea causes DNA damage in murine kidney cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1999–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Araraquara—UNIARAAraraquaraBrazil
  2. 2.Centre d’Optique, Photonique et LaserUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Instituto de Física de São CarlosUniversidade de São PauloSão CarlosBrazil
  4. 4.Institute of ChemistryUNESP—São Paulo State UniversityAraraquaraBrazil

Personalised recommendations