Advertisement

Biomaterials

  • Rainer Detsch
  • Julia Will
  • Jasmin Hum
  • Judith A. Roether
  • Aldo R. Boccaccini
Chapter
Part of the Learning Materials in Biosciences book series (LMB)

Abstract

Biomaterials are a special class of materials that have been engineered to take a form which, alone or as part of a complex system, is used to direct the course of any therapeutic or diagnostic procedure, by controlling interactions with components of living systems. Furthermore, biomaterials can be classified as types of materials – be it natural or synthetic, alive or lifeless and usually made of multiple components – that interact with biological systems. The biomaterials are used either for therapeutic (treat, augment, repair or replace a tissue function) or for diagnostic (sensors, cancer models, animal test substitution) purposes.

Synthetic biomaterials (ceramics, metals, polymers and composites) are prepared using a large variety of different processing methods. There are several industrial processing methods for producing synthetic biomaterials; however in this book chapter, only laboratory-scale technologies are presented. Anyway, sterilization is an important process of biomaterial development, whereby harmful substances (e.g. bacteria) are eliminated through the use of physical, chemical and physicochemical means (e.g. high temperature, intense radiation, concentrated toxic chemicals).

This book chapter – cells meet surface – deals primarily with the most important aspect of biomaterials, i.e. their interactions with cells. Cells are generally more sensitive to toxic materials in vitro than in vivo tissue. Therefore, a material showing a moderate to high level of toxicity in vitro may result not particularly toxic for the tissue in vivo, while a material harmless to the cells, even in long-lasting assays, is likely to be inert also in vivo. However, the word biocompatibility refers also to the interaction of a living system or tissue with a finished medical device or component material.

Cell-material interactions are a complex process and play an essential role for the integrity of biomaterials into the human body. Next to qualitative properties like compatibility or stability, other material characteristics influence the cellular interactions taking place at the interface. Especially, surface chemistry, elasticity, porosity and topography have a significant effect on the attachment, proliferation and differentiation of different cell lines and can control shape, size and density of cells. As the development of cells on a biomaterial surface can be tailored by surface properties, one section describes and explains the influence of different parameters and provides an overview of the involved processes. At the end of this book chapter, tissue engineering and biofabrication applications will be explained to open more complex but also more efficient insights of the cell meets surface issue.

References

  1. 1.
    Langer R, Tirrell DA. Designing materials for biology and medicine. Nature. 2004;428:487–92.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ratner BD, Bryant SJ. Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004;6:41–75.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.6.040803.140027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008;29:2941–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallin RF, Arscott EF. A practical guide to ISO 10993-5: cytotoxicity. Med Device Diagnostic Ind. 1998;20:2–4. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0032047897&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Detsch R, Boccaccini AR. The role of osteoclasts in bone tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015;9:1133–49.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Detsch R, Alles S, Hum J, Westenberger P, Sieker F, Heusinger D, Kasper C, Boccaccini AR. Osteogenic differentiation of umbilical cord and adipose derived stem cells onto highly porous 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:1029–37.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5474–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Detsch R, Mayr H, Ziegler G. Formation of osteoclast-like cells on HA and TCP ceramics. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:139–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.03.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sansone V. The effects on bone cells of metal ions released from orthopaedic implants. A review. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.11138/ccmbm/2013.10.1.034.
  10. 10.
    Xu L-C, Siedlecki CA. Effects of surface wettability and contact time on protein adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3273–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.032.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kasemo B, Gold J. Implant surfaces and Interface processes. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:8–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130011901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vilaseca P, Dawson KA, Franzese G. Understanding and modulating the competitive surface-adsorption of proteins through coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations. Soft Matter. 2013;9:6978.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3sm50220a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes JS, Czekanska EM, Richards RG. The cell–surface interaction. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2012;126:1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2011_110. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuan Y, Lee TR. Contact angle and wetting properties. In: Bracco G, Holst B, editors. Surface science techniques, Springer series, Surface sciences, vol. 51. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 3–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34243-1_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang K, Zhou C, Hong Y, Zhang X. A review of protein adsorption on bioceramics. Interface Focus. 2012;2:259–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oyen ML. Nanoindentation of biological and biomimetic materials. Exp Tech. 2013;37:73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1567.2011.00716.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maia FR, Fonseca KB, Rodrigues G, Granja PL, Barrias CC. Matrix-driven formation of mesenchymal stem cell–extracellular matrix microtissues on soft alginate hydrogels. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:3197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.02.049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamada KM, Cukierman E. Modeling tissue morphogenesis and cancer in 3D. Cell. 2007;130:601–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.08.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bott K, Upton Z, Schrobback K, Ehrbar M, Hubbell JA, Lutolf MP, Rizzi SC. The effect of matrix characteristics on fibroblast proliferation in 3D gels. Biomaterials. 2010;31:8454–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curtis A, Wilkinson C. Topographical control of cells. Biomaterials. 1997;18:1573–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00144-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seitz H, Deisinger U, Leukers B, Detsch R, Ziegler G. Different calcium phosphate granules for 3-D printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Adv Eng Mater. 2009;11:B41–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.200800334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curtis ASG, Gadegaard N, Dalby MJ, Riehle MO, Wilkinson CDW, Aitchison G. Cells react to nanoscale order and symmetry in their surroundings. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2004;3:61–5.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TNB.2004.824276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Choi CH, Heydarkhan-Hagvall S, Wu BM, Dunn JCY, Beygui RE, Cjkim CJ. Cell growth as a sheet on three-dimensional sharp-tip nanostructures. J Biomed Mater Res – Part A. 2009;89:804–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Oreffo ROC. Harnessing nanotopography and integrin-matrix interactions to influence stem cell fate. Nat Mater. 2014;13:558–69.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hu X, Park S-H, Gil ES, Xia X-X, Weiss AS, Kaplan DL. The influence of elasticity and surface roughness on myogenic and osteogenic-differentiation of cells on silk-elastin biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2011;32:8979–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.037.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang J, Sun L, Luo X, Barbieri D, de Bruijn JD, van Blitterswijk CA, Moroni L, Yuan H. Cells responding to surface structure of calcium phosphate ceramics for bone regeneration. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017;11:3273.  https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993;260:920–6.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8493529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ikada Y. Challenges in tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface. 2006;3:589–601.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Malda J, Visser J, Melchels FP, Jüngst T, Hennink WE, Dhert WJA, Groll J, Hutmacher DW. 25th anniversary article: engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater. 2013;25:5011–28.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201302042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zehnder T, Sarker B, Boccaccini AR, Detsch R. Evaluation of an alginate–gelatine crosslinked hydrogel for bioplotting. Biofabrication. 2015;7:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/2/025001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grigore A, Sarker B, Fabry B, Boccaccini AR, Detsch R. Behavior of encapsulated MG-63 cells in RGD and gelatine-modified alginate hydrogels. Tissue Eng Part A. 2014;20:2140–50.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Detsch
    • 1
  • Julia Will
    • 1
  • Jasmin Hum
    • 1
  • Judith A. Roether
    • 2
  • Aldo R. Boccaccini
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Biomaterials, Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Polymer Materials, Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations