Advertisement

Science China Materials

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 579–592 | Cite as

Polydopamine-assisted functionalization of heparin and vancomycin onto microarc-oxidized 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V for improved hemocompatibility, osteogenic and anti-infection potencies

  • Teng Zhang (张腾)
  • Wenhao Zhou (周文昊)
  • Zhaojun Jia (贾昭君)
  • Qingguang Wei (魏庆广)
  • Daoyang Fan (范道洋)
  • Jianglong Yan (鄢江龙)
  • Chuan Yin (尹川)
  • Yan Cheng (成艳)
  • Hong Cai (蔡宏)
  • Xiaoguang Liu (刘晓光)
  • Hua Zhou (周华)
  • Xiaojie Yang (杨晓杰)
  • Yufeng Zheng (郑玉峰)
  • Zhongjun Liu (刘忠军)
Articles
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

Enhanced antiinfection activities, improved hemocompatibility and osteo-compatibility, and reinforced osseointegration are among the most important considerations in designing multifunctional orthopedic biomaterials. Hereby, anti-infective and osteogenic multifunctional 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V implant with excellent hemocompatibility was successfully designed and fabricated. In brief, osteogenic micro-arc oxidation (MAO) coatings with micro/nanoscale porous topography were generated in situ on 3D printed Ti6Al4V scaffolds, on which heparin and vancomycin were easily immobilized. The surface microstructure, morphology, and chemical compositions were characterized employing scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). High loading capacity and sustained vancomycin release profiles were revealed using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Favorable antibacterial and antibiofilm performances against pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) were validated in vitro through microbial viability assays, Live/Dead bacterial staining, and crystal violet staining. Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) were seeded on the scaffolds and their proliferation and viability were assessed using Cell Counting Kit and Live/Dead cell viability kit. Further, osteoblastic differentiation abilities were evaluated using alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity as a hall marker. Additionally, the improved hemocompatibility of the heparinized scaffolds was confirmed by activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), prothrombin time (PT) and thrombin time (TT). Overall, our results show that the surface-modified 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V possesses balanced antibacterial and osteogenic functions while exhibiting extra anticlotting effects, boding well for future application in customized functional reconstruction of intricate bone defects.

Keywords

3D printing porous Ti6Al4V anti-infection microarc oxidation osseointegration vancomycin 

聚多巴胺辅助微弧氧化后载肝素和万古霉素以提高3D打印多孔钛合金内植物的血液相容性和抗菌成骨功能

摘要

在研发多功能骨科生物材料时, 抗菌能力、 血液相容性、 骨细胞相容性和骨整合性能是最重要的考虑因素. 本文中, 我们成功研发了具有良好血液相容性的抗菌、促成骨复合功能的3D打印多孔钛合金内植物. 简言之, 3D打印多孔钛合金支架经表面处理后具有多孔形貌的微弧氧化促成骨涂层, 进而联结固定肝素钠和万古霉素. 本文采用扫描电镜、 X射线光电子能谱分析和傅里叶变换红外光谱学对其表面微观结构、 形态和化学组成进行了表征, 并用高效液相色谱法检测了其载药能力和万古霉素释放曲线. 通过微生物检测、 细菌死活染色和结晶紫染色, 确定了其良好的抗金葡菌及菌膜性能. 将人骨髓间充质干细胞在支架上培养后, 用细胞计数试剂盒和细胞活性检测试剂盒检测了其增殖活性. 此外, 用碱性磷酸酶成活性作为标记检测了成骨细胞分化能力, 通过检测活化部分凝血活酶时间、 血浆凝血酶原时间和凝血酶时间, 确定肝素化的支架血液相容性得到了提高. 该研究结果表明, 经过表面改性的3D打印多孔钛合金内植物拥有稳定的抗菌和促成骨功能, 同时显现出抗凝特性. 预示着其在未来能用于复杂骨缺损的定制化功能重建.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Grant from Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016YFB1101501) and research and financial support from the Beijing AKEC Medical Co., Ltd. and Medical Research Center of Peking University Third Hospital.

Supplementary material

40843_2017_9208_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
Polydopamine-assisted functionalization of heparin and vancomycin onto microarc-oxidized 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V for improved hemocompatibility, osteogenic and anti-infection potencies

References

  1. 1.
    Yang F, Chen C, Zhou QR, et al. Laser beam melting 3D printing of Ti6Al4V based porous structured dental implants: fabrication, biocompatibility analysis and photoelastic study. Sci Rep, 2017, 7: 45360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah FA, Snis A, Matic A, et al. 3D printed Ti6Al4V implant surface promotes bone maturation and retains a higher density of less aged osteocytes at the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater, 2016, 30: 357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medicrea International. French Surgeon Performs World’s First Spinal Fusion Surgery Using Customized 3-D Printed Spine Cages. Business Wire (English), 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amin Yavari S, Loozen L, Paganelli FL, et al. Antibacterial behavior of additively manufactured porous titanium with nanotubular surfaces releasing silver ions. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016, 8: 17080–17089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jia Z, Xiu P, Xiong P, et al. Additively manufactured macroporous titanium with silver-releasing micro-/nanoporous surface for multipurpose infection control and bone repair—a proof of concept. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016, 8: 28495–28510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC, Subbiahdoss G, et al. Biomaterialassociated infection: locating the finish line in the race for the surface. Sci Transl Med, 2012, 4: 153rv10–153rv10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saleh J, El-Othmani MM, Saleh KJ. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism considerations in orthopedic surgery. Orthop Clin North Am, 2017, 48: 127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lv J, Jia Z, Li J, et al. Electron beam melting fabrication of porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds: cytocompatibility and osteogenesis. Adv Eng Mater, 2015, 17: 1391–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lopez-Heredia MA, Sohier J, Gaillard C, et al. Rapid prototyped porous titanium coated with calcium phosphate as a scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2008, 29: 2608–2615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xiu P, Jia Z, Lv J, et al. Tailored surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V by microarc oxidation for enhanced osseointegration via optimized bone in-growth patterns and interlocked bone/implant interface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016, 8: 17964–17975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amin Yavari S, van der Stok J, Chai YC, et al. Bone regeneration performance of surface-treated porous titanium. Biomaterials, 2014, 35: 6172–6181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee H, Jang TS, Song J, et al. Multi-scale porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds with enhanced strength and biocompatibility formed via dynamic freeze-casting coupled with micro-arc oxidation. Mater Lett, 2016, 185: 21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radtke A, Topolski A, Jędrzejewski T, et al. The bioactivity and photocatalytic properties of titania nanotube coatings produced with the use of the low-potential anodization of Ti6Al4V alloy surface. Nanomaterials, 2017, 7: 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cao H, Liu X. Plasma-sprayed ceramic coatings for osseointegration. Int J Appl Ceram Technol, 2013, 10: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Govindharajulu JP, Chen X, Li Y, et al. Chitosan-recombinamer layer-by-layer coatings for multifunctional implants. Int J Mol Sci, 2017, 18: 369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou L, LV GH, Mao FF, Yang SZ. Preparation of biomedical Ag incorporated hydroxyapatite/titania coatings on Ti6Al4V alloy by plasma electrolytic oxidation. Chin Phys, 2014, 3: 035205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darouiche RO. Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis, 2001, 33: 1567–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmerli W, Waldvogel FA, Vaudaux P, et al. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: description and characteristics of an animal model. J Infect Dis, 1982, 146: 487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, et al. The Calgary Biofilm Device: New technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol, 1999, 6: 1771–1776Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishibe T, Goto T, Kodama T, et al. Bone formation on apatitecoated titanium with incorporated BMP-2/heparin in vivo. Oral Surgery Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Rad Endodontol, 2009, 108: 867–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee DW, Yun YP, Park K, et al. Gentamicin and bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2)-delivering heparinized-titanium implant with enhanced antibacterial activity and osteointegration. Bone, 2012, 50: 974–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim SE, Song SH, Yun YP, et al. The effect of immobilization of heparin and bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2) to titanium surfaces on inflammation and osteoblast function. Biomaterials, 2011, 32: 366–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teixeira S, Yang L, Dijkstra PJ, et al. Heparinized hydroxyapatite/collagen three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Mater Sci-Mater Med, 2010, 21: 2385–2392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schroeder-Tefft JA, Bentz H, Estridge TD. Collagen and heparin matrices for growth factor delivery. J Control Release, 1997, 48: 29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meneghetti MCZ, Hughes AJ, Rudd TR, et al. Heparan sulfate and heparin interactions with proteins. J R Soc Interface, 2015, 12: 20150589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sofroniadou S, Revela I, Smirloglou D, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin antibiotic lock solution for the prevention of nontunneled catheter-related blood stream infections in hemodialysis patients: a prospective randomized study. Seminars Dialysis, 2012, 25: 344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cesaro S, Cavaliere M, Spiller M, et al. A simplified method of antibiotic lock therapy for Broviac–Hickman catheters using a CLC 2000 connector device. Support Care Cancer, 2007, 15: 95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moore CL, Besarab A, Ajluni M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of two catheter locking solutions to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in hemodialysis patients. Clinical J Am Soc Nephrology, 2014, 9: 1232–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu C, Han P, Liu X, et al. Mussel-inspired bioceramics with selfassembled Ca-P/polydopamine composite nanolayer: Preparation, formation mechanism, improved cellular bioactivity and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells. Acta Biomater, 2014, 10: 428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheng C, Li S, Zhao W, et al. The hydrodynamic permeability and surface property of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes with mussel-inspired polydopamine coatings. J Membrane Sci, 2012, 417–418: 228–236Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee H, Dellatore SM, Miller WM, et al. Mussel-inspired surface chemistry for multifunctional coatings. Science, 2007, 318: 426–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kang SM, Hwang NS, Yeom J, et al. One-step multipurpose surface functionalization by adhesive catecholamine. Adv Funct Mater, 2012, 22: 2949–2955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee H, Rho J, Messersmith PB. Facile conjugation of biomolecules onto surfaces via mussel adhesive protein inspired coatings. Adv Mater, 2009, 21: 431–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jia Z, Shi Y, Xiong P, et al. From solution to biointerface: graphene self-assemblies of varying lateral sizes and surface properties for biofilm control and osteodifferentiation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2016, 8: 17151–17165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jiang JH, Zhu LP, Li XL, et al. Surface modification of PE porous membranes based on the strong adhesion of polydopamine and covalent immobilization of heparin. J Membrane Sci, 2010, 364: 194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhu LP, Yu JZ, Xu YY, et al. Surface modification of PVDF porous membranes via poly(DOPA) coating and heparin immobilization. Colloids Surfs B-Biointerfaces, 2009, 69: 152–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lv J, Xiu P, Tan J, et al. Enhanced angiogenesis and osteogenesis in critical bone defects by the controlled release of BMP-2 and VEGF: implantation of electron beam melting-fabricated porous Ti6Al4 scaffolds incorporating growth factor-doped fibrin glue. Biomed Mater, 2015, 10: 035013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Del Frari D, Bour J, Ball V, et al. Degradation of polydopamine coatings by sodium hypochlorite: A process depending on the substrate and the film synthesis method. Polymer Degradation Stability, 2012, 97: 1844–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ma L, Cheng C, He C, et al. Substrate-independent robust and heparin-mimetic hydrogel thin film coating via combined LbL selfassembly and mussel-inspired post-cross-linking. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015, 7: 26050–26062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ordikhani F, Tamjid E, Simchi A. Characterization and antibacterial performance of electrodeposited chitosan–vancomycin composite coatings for prevention of implant-associated infections. Mater Sci Eng-C, 2014, 41: 240–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu T, Liu Y, Chen Y, et al. Immobilization of heparin/poly-l-lysine nanoparticles on dopamine-coated surface to create a heparin density gradient for selective direction of platelet and vascular cells behavior. Acta Biomater, 2014, 10: 1940–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liu Y, Zheng Y, Hayes B. Degradable, absorbable or resorbable— what is the best grammatical modifier for an implant that is eventually absorbed by the body? Sci China Mater, 2017, 60: 377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang J, Cai H, Lv J, et al. In vivo study of a self-stabilizing artificial vertebral body fabricated by electron beam melting. Spine, 2014, 39: E486–E492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xu N, Wei F, Liu X, et al. Reconstruction of the upper cervical spine using a personalized 3D-printed vertebral body in an adolescent with Ewing sarcoma. Spine, 2016, 41: E50–E54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang RF, Qiao LP, Qu B, et al. Biocompatibility of micro-arc oxidation coatings developed on Ti6Al4V alloy in a solution containing organic phosphate. Mater Lett, 2015, 153: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Li G, Xie B, Pan C, et al. Facile conjugation of heparin onto titanium surfaces via dopamine inspired coatings for improving blood compatibility. J Wuhan Univ Technol-Mat Sci Edit, 2014, 29: 832–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barradas AMC, Fernandes HAM, Groen N, et al. A calcium-induced signaling cascade leading to osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. Biomaterials, 2012, 33: 3205–3215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bouyer M, Guillot R, Lavaud J, et al. Surface delivery of tunable doses of BMP-2 from an adaptable polymeric scaffold induces volumetric bone regeneration. Biomaterials, 2016, 104: 168–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Inzana JA, Olvera D, Fuller SM, et al. 3D printing of composite calcium phosphate and collagen scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomaterials, 2014, 35: 4026–4034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Xu S, Song J, Zhu C, et al. Graphene oxide-encapsulated Ag nanoparticle-coated silk fibers with hierarchical coaxial cable structure fabricated by the molecule-directed self-assembly. Mater Lett, 2017, 188: 215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yang Y, Yang S, Wang Y, et al. Anti-infective efficacy, cytocompatibility and biocompatibility of a 3D-printed osteoconductive composite scaffold functionalized with quaternized chitosan. Acta Biomater, 2016, 46: 112–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pérez-Anes A, Gargouri M, Laure W, et al. Bioinspired titanium drug eluting platforms based on a poly-β-cyclodextrin–chitosan layer-by-layer self-assembly targeting infections. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015, 7: 12882–12893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Önder S. Surface modification of titanium using bsa-loaded chitosan and chitosan/gelatin polymers. J Med Biol Eng, 2016, 36: 661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teng Zhang (张腾)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wenhao Zhou (周文昊)
    • 3
  • Zhaojun Jia (贾昭君)
    • 3
    • 4
  • Qingguang Wei (魏庆广)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daoyang Fan (范道洋)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jianglong Yan (鄢江龙)
    • 3
  • Chuan Yin (尹川)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yan Cheng (成艳)
    • 3
  • Hong Cai (蔡宏)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaoguang Liu (刘晓光)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hua Zhou (周华)
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaojie Yang (杨晓杰)
    • 5
  • Yufeng Zheng (郑玉峰)
    • 3
    • 4
  • Zhongjun Liu (刘忠军)
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsPeking University Third HospitalBeijingChina
  2. 2.Beijing Key Laboratory of Spinal DiseasesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Center for Biomedical Materials and Tissue Engineering, Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary StudiesPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.Department of Materials Science and Engineering, College of EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  5. 5.Beijing AKEC Medical Company Ltd.BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations