In-situ hybridization of calcium silicate and hydroxyapatite-gelatin nanocomposites enhances physical property and in vitro osteogenesis

  • Chi-Kai Chiu
  • Dong Joon Lee
  • Hsin Chen
  • Laurence C. Chow
  • Ching-Chang Ko
Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Engineering and Nano-engineering Approaches for Medical Devices


Low mechanical strengths and inadequate bioactive material-tissue interactions of current synthetic materials limit their clinical applications in bone regeneration. Here, we demonstrate gelatin modified siloxane–calcium silicate (GEMOSIL–CS), a nanocomposite made of gelatinous hydroxyapatite with in situ pozzolanic formation of calcium silicate (CS) interacting among gelatin, silica and Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). It is shown the formation of CS matrices, which chemically bonds to the gelatinous hydroxyapatite, provided hygroscopic reinforcement mechanism and promoted both in vitro and in vivo osteogenic properties of GEMOSIL–CS. The formation of CS was identified by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and powder X-ray diffraction. The interfacial bindings within nanocomposites were studied by FTIR and thermogravimetric analysis. Both gelatin and CS have been found critical to the structure integrity and mechanical strengths (93 MPa in compressive strength and 58.9 MPa in biaxial strength). The GEMOSIL–CS was biocompatible and osteoconductive as result of type I collagen secretion and mineralized nodule formation from MC3T3 osteoblasts. SEM and TEM indicated the secretion of collagen fibers and mineral particles as the evidence of mineralization in the early stage of osteogenic differentiation. In vivo bone formation capability was performed by implanting GEMOSIL–CS into rat calvarial defects for 12 weeks and the result showed comparable new bone formation between GEMOSIL–CS group (20 %) and the control (20.19 %). The major advantage of GEMOSIL–CS composites is in situ self-hardening in ambient or aqueous environment at room temperature providing a simple, fast and cheap method to produce porous scaffolds.


Osteogenic Differentiation Calcium Hydroxide Calcium Silicate Calcium Silicate Hydrate Pozzolanic Reaction 
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.



Research reported in this publication was supported by NIH/NIDCR KO8DE018695 and R01DE022816-01.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993;260:920–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2529–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffith LG, Naughton G. Tissue engineering-current challenges and expanding opportunities. Science. 2002;295:1009–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang SF, Leong KF, Du ZH, Chua CK. The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering. Part 1. Traditional factors. Tissue Eng. 2001;7:679–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:S96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mistry AS, Mikos AG. Tissue engineering strategies for bone regeneration. In Regenerative Medicine Ii: Clinical and Preclinical Applications. New York: Springer; 2005. Pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Du C, Cui FZ, Zhu XD, de Groot K. Three-dimensional nano-HAp/collagen matrix loading with osteogenic cells in organ culture. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;44:407–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Itoh S, Kikuchi M, Takakuda K, Nagaoka K, Koyama Y, Tanaka J, Shinomiya K. Implantation study of a novel hydroxyapatite/collagen (HAp/Col) composite into weight-bearing sites of dogs. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63:507–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang MC, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Preparation of hydroxyapatite-gelatin nanocomposite. Biomaterials. 2003;24:2853–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim HW, Kim HE, Salih V. Stimulation of osteoblast responses to biomimetic nanocomposites of gelatin-hydroxyapatite for tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim HW, Song JH, Kim HE. Nanoriber generation of gelatin-hydroxyapatite biomimetics for guided tissue regeneration. Adv Funct Mater. 2005;15:1988–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shie MY, Chen CH, Wang CY, Chiang TY, Ding SJ. Immersion behavior of gelatin-containing calcium phosphate cement. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:646–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bigi A, Bracci B, Panzavolta S. Effect of added gelatin on the properties of calcium phosphate cement. Biomaterials. 2004;25:2893–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ding SJ, Wei CK, Lai MH. Bio-inspired calcium silicate-gelatin bone grafts for load-bearing applications. J Mater Chem. 2011;21:12793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radev L, Hristov V, Fernandes MHV, Salvado IMM. Organic/inorganic bioactive materials Part IV: in vitro assessment of bioactivity of gelatin-calcium phosphate silicate/wollastonite hybrids. Cent Eur J Chem. 2010;8:278–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiu CK, Ferreira J, Luo TZ, Geng H, Lin FC, Ko CC. Direct scaffolding of biomimetic hydroxyapatite-gelatin nanocomposites using aminosilane cross-linker for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci. 2012;23:2115–26.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolado JS, Campillo I, Erkizia E, Ibanez JA, Porro A, Guerrero A, Goni S. Effect of nanosilica additions on Belite Cement pastes held in sulfate solutions. J Am Ceram Soc. 2007;90:3973–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ye Q, Zhang ZN, Kong DY, Chen RS. Influence of nano-SiO2 addition on properties of hardened cement paste as compared with silica fume. Constr Build Mater. 2005;21:539–45.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao WY, Wang JY, Zhai WY, Wang Z, Chang J. The self-setting properties and in vitro bioactivity of tricalcium silicate. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kikuchi M, Cho SB, Tanaka J, Koyama Y, Kobayashi T, Takakuda K, Akao M. Preparation and biocompatibility of beta -tricalcium-phosphate/copolymerized-poly-l-lactide composite. J Japan Soc Powder Powder Metall. 1998;45:36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dyke JC, Knoght KJ, Huaxing Z, Chiu CK, Ko C, You W. An investigation of siloxane cross-linked hydroxyapatite-gelatin/copolymer composites for potential orthopedic applications. J Mater Chem. 2012;22:22888–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferreira JR, Hirsch ML, Zhang L, Park R, Samulski RJ, Hu WS, Ko CC. Three-dimensional multipotent progenitor cell aggregates for expansion, osteogenic differentiation and ‘in vivo’ tracing with AAV vector serotype 6. Gene Ther. 2012;20:158–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferreira JR, Padilla R, Urkasemsin G, Yoon K, Goeckner K, Hu WS, Ko CC. Titanium-enriched hydroxyapatite-gelatin scaffolds with osteogenically differentiated progenitor cell aggregates for calvaria bone regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A. 2013;19:1803–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luo TJM, Ko CC, Chiu CK, Llyod J, Huh U. Aminosilane as an effective binder for hydroxyapatite-gelatin nanocomposites. J Sol–Gel Sci Technol. 2010;53:459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farhat IA, Orset S, Moreau P, Blanshard JM. FTIR study of hydration phenomena in protein-sugar systems. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1998;207:200–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baciu D, Simitzis J. Synthesis and characterization of a calcium silicate bioactive glass. J Optoelectron Adv Mater. 2007;9:3320–4.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ward AG. The science and technology of gelatin. London: Academic Press; 1977. p. 258–60.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Valenti GL, Cioffi R. Quantitative-determination of calcium hydroxide in the presence of calcium silicate hydrates—comparison between chemical-extraction and thermal-analysis. J Mater Sci Lett. 1985;4:475–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bjornstrom J, Martinelli A, Matic A, Borjesson L, Panas I. Accelerating effects of colloidal nano-silica for beneficial calcium-silicate-hydrate formation in cement. Chem Phys Lett. 2004;392:242–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fujitsu M, Hattori M, Tamura T. Effects of hydroxy compounds on gel formation of gelatin. Colloid Polym Sci. 1997;275:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veis A. The macromolecular chemistry of gelatin. New York: Academic Press; 1964. p. 196–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ko CC, Oyen M, Fallgatter AM, Hu W-S. Mechanical properties and cytocompatibility of biomimetic hydroxyapatite-gelatin nanocomposites. J Mater Res. 2006;21:3090–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ren L, Tsuru K, Hayakawa S, Osaka A. Incorporation of Ca2+ ions in gelatin-siloxane hybrids through a sol-gel process. J Ceram Soc Jpn. 2001;109:406–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fujishiro Y, Takahashi K, Sato T. Preparation and compressive strength of alpha-tricalcium phosphate/gelatin gel composite cement. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;54:525–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matsuyuma H, Young JF. Synthesis of calcium silicate hydrate/polymer complexes: part I. Anionic and nonionic polymers. J Mater Res. 1999;14:3379–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Minet J, Abramson S, Bresson B, Franceschini A, Van Damme H, Lequeux N. Organic calcium silicate hydrate hybrids: a new approach to cement based nanocomposites. J Mater Chem. 2006;16:1379–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoppe A, Guldal NS, Boccaccini AR. A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials. 2011;32:2757–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raucci A, Bellosta P, Grassi R, Basilico C, Mansukhani A. Osteoblast proliferation or differentiation is regulated by relative strengths of opposing signaling pathways. J Cell Physiol. 2008;215:442–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maeno S, Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Morioka H, Yatabe T, Funayama A, Toyama Y, Taguchi T, Tanaka J. The effect of calcium ion concentration on osteoblast viability, proliferation and differentiation in monolayer and 3D culture. Biomaterials. 2005;26:4847–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eklou-Kalonji E, Denis I, Lieberherr M, Pointillart A. Effects of extracellular calcium on the proliferation and differentiation of porcine osteoblasts in vitro. Cell Tissue Res. 1998;292:163–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu Y-L. Interaction of bone cells with biomimetic hydroxyapatite gelatin nanocomposites towards developing bone tissue engineering. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Minnesota. 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chi-Kai Chiu
    • 1
  • Dong Joon Lee
    • 1
  • Hsin Chen
    • 2
  • Laurence C. Chow
    • 3
  • Ching-Chang Ko
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.NC Oral Health Institute, School of DentistryUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Endodontics, School of DentistryUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Paffenbarger Research Center (ADAF)National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthodontics, School of DentistryUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations