Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 3151–3162 | Cite as

Tissue response and biodegradation of composite scaffolds prepared from Thai silk fibroin, gelatin and hydroxyapatite

  • Hathairat Tungtasana
  • Somruetai Shuangshoti
  • Shanop Shuangshoti
  • Sorada Kanokpanont
  • David L. Kaplan
  • Tanom Bunaprasert
  • Siriporn Damrongsakkul


This work aimed to investigate tissue responses and biodegradation, both in vitro and in vivo, of four types of Bombyx mori Thai silk fibroin based-scaffolds. Thai silk fibroin (SF), conjugated gelatin/Thai silk fibroin (CGSF), hydroxyapatite/Thai silk fibroin (SF4), and hydroxyapatite/conjugated gelatin/Thai silk fibroin (CGSF4) scaffolds were fabricated using salt-porogen leaching, dehydrothermal/chemical crosslinking and an alternate soaking technique for mineralization. In vitro biodegradation in collagenase showed that CGSF scaffolds had the slowest biodegradability, due to the double crosslinking by dehydrothermal and chemical treatments. The hydroxyapatite deposited from alternate soaking separated from the surface of the protein scaffolds when immersed in collagenase. From in vivo biodegradation studies, all scaffolds could still be observed after 12 weeks of implantation in subcutaneous tissue of Wistar rats and also following ISO10993-6: Biological evaluation of medical devices. At 2 and 4 weeks of implantation the four types of Thai silk fibroin based-scaffolds were classified as “non-irritant” to “slight-irritant”, compared to Gelfoam® (control samples). These natural Thai silk fibroin-based scaffolds may provide suitable biomaterials for clinical applications.


Hydroxyapatite Silk Fibroin Bone Tissue Engineering Gelfoam Silk Fibroin Scaffold 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The financial supports from the 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund), Chulalongkorn University Centenary Academic Development Project and National Research Council of Thailand are highly acknowledged. H.T. also thanks Polymer Engineering Laboratory, Biomedical Engineering Laboratory (Faculty of Engineering), and i-Tissue Laboratory (Faculty of Medicine), Chulalongkorn University for the support of laboratory facilities.


  1. 1.
    Meinel L, Fajardo R, Hofmann S, Langer R, Chen J, Snyder B, Novakovic GV, Kaplan DL. Silk implants for the healing of critical size bone defects. Bone. 2005;37:688–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang Y, Kim HJ, Novakovic GV, Kaplan DL. Stem cell-based tissue engineering with silk biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2006;37:6064–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meinel L, Hofmann S, Karageorgiou V, Heade CK, McCool J, Gronowicz G, Zichner L, Langer R, Novakovic GV, Kaplan DL. The inflammatory responses to silk films in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials. 2005;26:147–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vepari C, Kaplan DL. Silk as a biomaterial. Prog Polym Sci. 2007;32:991–1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim HJ, Kima UJ, Novakovic GV, Min BH, Kaplan DL. Influence of macroporous protein scaffolds on bone tissue engineering from bone marrow stem cells. Biomaterials. 2005;26:4442–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chamchongkaset J, Kanokpanont S, Kaplan DL, Damrongsakkul S. Modification of Thai silk fibroin scaffolds by gelatin conjugation for tissue engineering. Adv Mater Res. 2008;55–57:685–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vachiraroj N, Ratanavaraporn J, Damrongsakkul S, Pichyangkura R, Banaprasert T, Kanokpanont S. A comparison of Thai silk fibroin-based and chitosan-based materials on in vitro biocompatibility for bone substitutes. Int J Biol Macromol. 2009;45(5):470–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO10993-6. Biological evaluation of medical devices—part 6: tests for local effects after implantation.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim UJ, Park J, Kim HJ, Wada M, Kaplan DL. Three-dimensional aqueous-derived biomaterial scaffolds from silk fibroin. Biomaterials. 2005;26:2775–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tagchi T, Kishida A, Akashi M. Hydroxyapatite formation on/in poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel matrices using a novel alternate soaking process. Chem Lett. 1998;711–712.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li M, Ogiso M, Minoura N. Enzymatic degradation behavior of porous silk fibroin sheets. Biomaterials. 2003;24:357–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrini P, Parolari C, Tanzi MC. Silk fibroin-polyurethane scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12:849–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehle K, Lohn S, Reinerth GU, Schubert T, Preuner GJ, Birnbaum DE. Cytological evaluation of the tissue-implant reaction associated with subcutaneous implantation of polymers coated with titaniumcarboxonitride in vivo. Biomaterials. 2004;25:5457–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dykstra JM. A manual of applied techniques for biological electron microscopy. Drying samples with hexamethyldisilazane. New York: Plenum; 1993. p. 109.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ozeki M, Tabata Y. In vivo degradability of hydrogels prepared from different gelatins by various cross-linking methods. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2005;16:549–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Everaerts F, Torrianni M, Hendriks M, Feijen J. Biomechanical properties of carbodiimide crosslinked collagen: influence of the formation of ester crosslinks. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;85(2):547–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim HJ, Kim JU, Kim SH, Li C, Wada M, Leisk GG, Kaplan DL. Bone tissue engineering with premineralized silk scaffolds. Bone. 2008;42:1226–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chunling D, Jun J, Yucheng L, Xiangdong K, Kemin W, Juming Y. Novel silk fibroin/hydroxyapatite composite films: structure and properties. Mater Sci Eng. 2009;C29:62–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang L, Nemoto R, Senna M. Microstructure and chemical states of hydroxyapatite/silk fibroin nanocomposites synthesized via a wet-mechanochemical route. J Nanopart Res. 2002;4:535–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furuzono T, Taguchi T, Kishida A, Akashi M, Tamada Y. Preparation and characterization of apatite deposited on silk fabric using an alternate soaking process. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;50:344–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhuang H, Zheng JP, Gao H. In vitro biodegradation and biocompatibility of gelatin/montmorillonite-chitosan intercalated nanocomposite. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18:951–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pek YS, Spector M, Yannas IV, Gibson LJ. Degradation of a collagen-chondroitin-6-sulfate matrix by collagenase and by chondroitinase. Biomaterials. 2004;25:473–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barbani N, Lazzeri L, Lelli L, Bonaretti A, Seggiani M, Narducci P, Pizzirani G, Giusti P. Physical and biological stability of dehydro-thermally crosslinked collagen-poly(vinyl alcohol) blends. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1994;5:882–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hathairat Tungtasana
    • 1
  • Somruetai Shuangshoti
    • 2
  • Shanop Shuangshoti
    • 3
  • Sorada Kanokpanont
    • 4
  • David L. Kaplan
    • 5
  • Tanom Bunaprasert
    • 6
  • Siriporn Damrongsakkul
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Biomedical Program, Graduate SchoolChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Department of Medical Services, Institute of PathologyMinistry of Public HealthBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Chulalongkorn GenePRO Center, Faculty of MedicineChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  4. 4.Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical EngineeringTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  6. 6.Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of MedicineChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations