Future Applications of Bioglass

  • Vidya KrishnanEmail author
Part of the Advanced Structured Materials book series (STRUCTMAT, volume 53)


Bioglass,since its inception has grown in its forms as well as its applications by leaps and bounds.Within its identified applications,the lack of its adverse effects has been its strength. To widen its horizon of uses,multitude of clinical studies are and have been conducted. An elaborate version has been given fieldwise in the previous chapters of our book. In this last chapter,a venture has been made to encompass bioglass's uses with its future implications, the restrictions around which we have to learn to work, and the possible improvisations to make such endeavours more successful. This insight is going to be effective in making bioglass the “Wonder Material” it is to be.


Simulated Body Fluid Bone Regeneration Bioactive Glass Glass Ceramic Itaconic Acid 
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.


  1. 1.
    Joughehdoust, S., et al.: Synthesis and in vitro investigation of sol–gel derived bioglass-58S nanopowders. Mater. Sci. Pol. 30(1), 45–52 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lutz-Christian, G., et al.: Bioactive glass and glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Materials 3, 3867–3910 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wei, L., et al.: Bioactive glasses; traditional and prospective applications in healthcare. Hot Top. Biomater. 56–68 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Werner, V., et al.: The development of bioglass for medical applications. Angew Wandte Chem. Int. Ed. 26(6), 527(1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gentleman, E., et al.: The effects of strontium-substituted bioactive glasses on osteoblasts and osteoclasts in vitro. Biomaterials 31(14), 3949–3956 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, H.W., et al.: Production and potential of bioactive glass nanofibers as a next-generation biomaterial. Adv. Funct. Mater. 16, 1529–1535 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ulrike, R., et al.: In vitro and in vivo biocompatibility of alginate dialdehyde/gelatin hydrogels with and without nanoscaled bioactive glass for bone tissue engineering applications. Materials 7, 1957–1974 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jell, G., et al.: Gene activation by bioactive glasses. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 17, 997–1002 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brahatheeswaran, D.: Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application. Int. J. Polym. Sci. Article ID 290602 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hafezi, F., et al.: Transplantation of nano-bioglass/gelatin scaffold in a non-autogenous setting for bone regeneration in a rabbit ulna. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 23, 2783–2792 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joao, C., et al.: Development and characterization of lanthanides doped hydroxyapatite composites for bone tissue application. Curr. Trends Glass Ceram. Mater. 87–115 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Day, R.M., et al.: In vitro and in vivo analysis of macroporous biodegradable poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds containing bioactive glass. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 75, 778–787 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorustovich, A., et al.: Effect of bioactive glasses on angiogenesis: in-vitro and in-vivo evidence. A review. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 16, 199–207 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Day, R.M., et al.: Bioactive glass stimulates the secretion of angiogenic growth factors and angiogenesis in vitr. Tissue Eng. 11, 768–777 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pity, I.S., et al.: Aniogenesis, p 53 and Bcl2 in colorectal carcinoma. Int. J. Adv. Res. Technol. 2(3), p.i (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wren, A.W., et al.: Fabrication of CaO-NaO-SiO2/TiO2 scaffolds for surgical applications. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 23(12), 2881 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Durgalakshmi, D., et al.: Nano-bioglass: a versatile antidote for bone tissue engineering problems. Proc. Eng. 92, 2–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nowakowska, D., et al.: Dynamic oxido reductive potential of astringent retraction agents. Folia Biol. (Praha) 56(6), 263 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Labbaf, S., et al.: Spherical bioactive glass particles and their interaction with human mesenchymal stem cells in vitro. Biomaterials 32, 1010–1018 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Conner S.D. et al: Regulated portals of entry into the cell. Nature 422(6927), 37–44 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hild W.A., et al.: Quantum dots-nano-sized probes for the exploration of cellular and intracellular targeting. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 68(2), 153–168 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foncea, et al.: Endothelial cell oxidative stress and signal transduction. Biol. Res. 33, 89–96 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kharasch et al.: Gene expression profiling of nephrotoxicity from the sevoflurane degradation product fluoromethyl-2,2-difluoro-1(trifluoromethyl)vinyl ether(“compound a”) in rats. Toxicol. Sci. 90, 419–431 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin, W.S., et al.: In Vitro toxicity of silica nanoparticles in human lung cancer cells. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 217(3), 252–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yuan, Y., et al.: Size-mediated cytotoxicity and apoptosis of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in human hepatoma HepG2 cells. Biomaterials 09, 088 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park, J.H., et al.: Magnetic iron oxide nanoworms for tumor targeting and imaging. Adv. Mater. 20(9), 1630.5 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park, J.H., et al.: Biodegradable luminescent porous silicon nanoparticles for in vivo applications. Nat. Mater. 8(4), 331–336 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsai, C.P., et al.: High contrast paramagnetic fluorescent mesoporous silica nanorods as a multifunctional cell-imaging probe. Small 4(2), 186–191 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang, X. et al: The effect of the shape of mesoporous silica nanoparticles on cellular uptake and cell function. Biomaterials 31(3), 438–48 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guang, D.L., et al.: Synthesis and characterization of magnetic bioactive glass-ceramics containing Mg ferrite for hyperthermia. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 30(1), 148–153 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shah, S.A., et al.: Magnetic and bioactivity evaluation of ferromagnetic ZnFe2O4 containing glass ceramics for the hyperthermia treatment of cancer. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. (Impact Factor 2) 322(3), 375–381 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jebahi, S., et al.: Therapeutic potential of curcumin encapsulated bioglass-chitosan: cytocompatibility, 1 anticoagulant, oxidative stress, mechanical properties and bone collagen cross-links 2 following exposure to ionizing radiation in a rat model. Turk. J. Biol. ISSN:1300-0152E-ISSN:1303 6092; online avlb;15/3/15Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hench, L.L., et al.: Interactions between bioactive glass and collagen: a review and new perspectives. J. Aust. Ceram. Soc. 49(2), 1–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farre-Guasch, E., et al.: Human maxillary sinus floor elevation as a model for bone regeneration enabling the application of one-step surgical procedures. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev., pp 1–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hall, M.B., et al.: Early clinical trials of 45S5 bioglass for endosseous alveolar ridge maintainance implants. In: Excerpta medica proceedings international congress on tissue integration and maxillofacial reconstruction, Brussels, vol. 2, pp. 48–252. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam (1985)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clark, A.E., et al.: Clinical trials of bioglass implants for alveolar ridge maintenance. J Dent Res 65(spec issue), 304 (1986)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stanley, H.R., et al.: The implantation of natural tooth from bioglass in baboons-long term results. Int. J. Oral Implant 2, 26–36 (1980)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stanley, H.R., Hall, M., et al.: Research protocol and consent form for project entitled: preservation of alveolar ridge with the intraosseous implantation of root shaped cones made of bio glass. Gainesville FL, University of Florida, J.H.Miller Health Center (1983)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weinstein, A.M., et al.: Implant-bone characteristics of bioglass dental implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 14, 23–29 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mistry, S., et al.: Indigenous hydroxyapatite coated and bioactive glass coated titanium dental implant system—fabrication and application in humans. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 15(3), 215–220 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gilam, D.G., Tang, J.Y., et al.: The effects of a novel bioglass dentrifice on dentine sensitivity: a scanning electron microscopy investigation. J. Oral Rahabil. 30(4), 446 (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Forsback, A.P., et al.: Mineralisation of dentin induced by treatment with bioactive glass s53p4 in vitro. Acta Odontol Scand. 62(1), 14–20 (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Curtis, et al.: Synthesis of nanobioglass and formation of apatite rods to occlude exposed dentine tubules and eliminate hypersensitivity. Acta Biomater. 6(9), 3740–3746 (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prabhakar, A.R., et al.: Comparison of the remineralising effects of sodium fluoride and bioactive glass using bioerodible gel systems. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 3(4), 11–121 (2009)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jennings, D., et al.: Quantitative analysis of tubule occlusion using NovaMin (sodium calcium phosphosilicate). J. Dent. Res. 83, 2416 (2006)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Burwell, A., et al.: Quantitative tubule occlusion in an in vitro remineralization/demineralization model. J. Dent. Res. 85, 568 (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Litknowski L.J., et al.: A clinical study of the effect of calcium sodium phosphosilicate on dentin hypersensitivity—proof of principle. J. Clin. Dent. 21, 77–81 (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Du, M.Q., et al.: Clinical evaluation of a dentifrice containing calcium sodium phosphosilicate (NovaMin) for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. Am. J. Dent. 21, 210–214 (2008)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sharma, et al.: A clinical study comparing oral formulations containing 7.5 % calcium sodium phsophosilicate (NovaMin), 5 % potassium nitrate, and 0.4 % stannous fluoride for the management of dentin hypersensitivity. J. Clin. Dent. 21(88–92), 178–180 (2010)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang, D., et al.: Antibacterial effects and dissolution behavior of six bio active glasses. J. Control Release 139(2), 118–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Han, P.P., et al.: The cementogenic differentiation of periodontal-ligament cells via the activation of Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathways by Li ions released from bioactive scaffolds. Biomaterials 33, 6370–6379 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kamitakahara, M., et al.: J. Ceram. Soc. Jpn. 108(12), 1117–1118 (2000)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Diba, M., et al.: Magnesium-containing bioactive glasses for biomedical applications. Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci. 3(3), 221–253 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Published Patent 3 July 2014. Pub no WO2014102538 A1 by inventors, Felora MIRVAKILY) Cheryl Miller, Paul V. HATTONGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bergey, D., et al.: Organically modified silica nanoparticles: a nonviral vector for in vivo gene delivery and expression in the brain. PNAS 102(32), 11539–11544 (2005)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhang, Y., et al.: Delivery of PDGF-B and BMP-7 by mesoporous bioglass/silk fibrin scaffolds for the repair of osteoporotic defects. Biomaterials 33, 6698e6708 (2012)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang, X., et al.: Borate bioglass based drug delivery of teicoplanin for treating osteomyleitis. J. Inorg. Mater. 25(3), 293–298 (2010)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Xie, Z., et al.: Treatment of osteomylelitis and repair of bone effect by degradable bioactive glass releasing vancomycin. J. Control. Release 39(2), 8–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Makoto, O., et al.: A novel skeletal drug delivery system using self setting bioactive glass bone cement III: the invitro drug release from bone cement containing indomethacin and its physicochemical properties. J. Control. Release 31(2), 118–126 (1994)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pillay, V., et al.: A review of the effect of processing variables on the fabrication of electrospun nanofibers for drug delivery applications. J. Nanomater. Article ID 789289, (2013)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lakhkar, N.J., et al.: Bone formation controlled by biologically relevant inorganic ions: Role and controlled delivery from phosphate-based glasses. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65, 405–420 (2013)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Van Gestel, N.A.P., et al.: Clinical applications of S53P4 bioactive glass in bone healing and osteomyelitic treatment: a literature review. BioMed Res. Int. ArticleID 68482Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Young-Phil, K., et al.: Phosphate glass fibres promote neurite outgrowth and early regeneration in a peripheral nerve injury model. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 9, 236–246 (2015)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fenoglio, I., et al.: Free radical generation in the toxicity of inhaled mineral particles: the role of iron speciation at the surface of asbestos and silica. Redox Rep. 6, 235–241 (2001)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Prior, S., et al.: Int. J. Pharm. 196(1), 115–125 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Andriano, K.P., et al.: J. Appl. Biomater. 5(2), 133–140 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cohn, D., et al.: Biomaterials 25(27), 5875–5884 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fernández, J., et al.: J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 9, 100–112 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Larranaga, A., et al.: Effect of bioactive glass particles on the thermal degradation behaviour of medical polyesters. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 98, 751–758 (2013)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jones, J.R., et al.: Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater. 9, 4457–4486 (2013)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Martin, R.A. etal.: Characterizing the hierarchial structures of bioactive sol–gel silicate glass and hybrid scaffolds for bone regeneration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 1422–43 (2012)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hench, L.H.: Opening paper 2015—some comments on bioglass: four eras of discovery and development. Biomed. Glasses 1, 1–11 (2015); De Gruyter OpenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral Medicine and RadiologySRM Kattankulathur Dental College and HospitalsChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations