Advertisement

Results of Biocompatibility Testing of Novel, Multifunctional Polymeric Implant Materials In-Vitro and In-Vivo

  • Dorothee RickertEmail author
  • Rosemarie Fuhrmann
  • Bernhard Hiebl
  • Andreas Lendlein
  • Ralf-Peter Franke
Conference paper
  • 923 Downloads
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology book series (NAPSA)

Abstract

Extensive in-vitro and in-vivo evaluation of the biocompatibility of biomaterials intended for clinical applications is necessary to provide information on the interactions that take place between the organism and these materials under specific implant conditions. Sterilization of polymer-based implant materials is a basic requirement but can lead to their damage or destruction. Low-temperature plasma (LTP) or ethylene oxide (EO) sterilization are objects of intensive research and were applied on the materials used in this program. After 4 weeks of polymer incubation in minimal essential medium (MEM), samples, sterilized by LTP, gave a markedly higher mean cell lysis rate (3.7 ± 2.5%) than EO sterilized samples (0.9 ± 0.3%). To achieve relevant in-vitro results on biomaterial-cell interactions, biocompatibility testing was carried out with cultures of locotypical cells, e.g. cells of the upper aerodigestive tract (ADT). Primary cell cultures of the oral cavity, the pharynx and the esophagus showed region-typical varying relationships between epithelial, fibroblastic and smooth muscle cells. Proper wound healing is thought to be required for the integration of biomaterials and angiogenesis is a prerequisite for this process. A focus of the present work was the influence of polymer-based implant materials and their degradation products on angiogenesis in-vivo. After 48 h, none of the polymer samples demonstrated development of an avascular region in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) test. A key process in proper wound healing is the tightly controlled degradation and regeneration of the extracellular matrix (ECM). A biomaterial for the reconstruction of the upper ADT is subjected to varying pH values and enzymatic, bacterial and mechanical stress during the digestive and the swallowing process. These complex conditions can currently only be investigated in-vivo in an animal model. As a model the stomach of the rat was selected, in which a biomaterial can be investigated under extreme chemical, enzymatic, bacteriological and mechanical conditions. Other parameters investigated are the impermeability of the polymer-tissue closure and the tissue regeneration after defect reconstruction. The fluid tight integration of a long term resorbable AB-copolymer network in the surrounding tissue of the gastric wall of Sprague Dawley rats could be demonstrated.

Keywords

Regenerative medicine Multifunctional biomaterials Sterilization Biocompatibility testing Extracellular matrix remodeling Biofunctionality testing in-vivo 

References

  1. Ahsan T, Nerem RM (2005) Bioengineered tissues: the science, the technology, and the industry. Orthod Craniofac Res 8(3):134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atala A (2005) Tissue engineering, stem cells and cloning: current concepts and changing trends. Expert Opin Biol Ther 5(7):879–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett JH, Morgan MJ, Whawell SA, Atkin P, Roblin P, Furness J, Speight PM (2000) Metalloproteinase expression in normal and malignant oral keratinocytes: stimulation of MMP-2 and-9 by scatter factor. Eur J Oral Sci 108(4):281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breymann C, Schmidt D, Hoerstrup S (2006) Umbilical cord cells as a source of cardiovascular tissue engineering. Stem Cell Rev 2(2):87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burslem R, Stevenson P (2005) Plasma processing of surfaces. Med Device Technol 16(7):40–41Google Scholar
  6. Chou LS, Firth JD, Uitto VJ, Brunette DM (1998) Effects of titanium substratum and grooved surface topography on metalloproteinase-2 expression in human fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res 39(3):437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark RAF (1995) The molecular and cellular biology of wound repair. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. El Mansouri H, Yagoubi N, Scholler D, Feigenbaum A, Ferrier D (1999) Propylene oligomers: extraction methods and characterization by FTIR, HPLC, and SEC. J Appl Polym Sci 71(3):371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Falconnet D, Csucs G, Grandin HM, Textor M (2006) Surface engineering approaches to micropattern surfaces for cell-based assays. Biomaterials 27(16):3044–3063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gall K, Yakacki CM, Liu YP, Shandas R, Willett N, Anseth KS (2005) Thermomechanics of the shape memory effect in polymers for biomedical applications. J Biomed Mater Res A 73A(3):339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman M, Gronsky R, Pruitt L (1998) The influence of sterilization technique and ageing on the structure and morphology of medical-grade ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. J Mater Sci Mater Med 9(4):207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grierson JP, Meldolesi J (1995) Shear stress-induced [Ca2+](I) transients and oscillations in mouse fibroblasts are mediated by endogenously released Atp. J Biol Chem 270(9):4451–4456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Humes DH (2005) Stem cells: the next therapeutic frontier. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 116:167–184Google Scholar
  14. ASTM International (1992) ASTM designation: F 813-83: standard practice for direct contact cell culture evaluation of materials for medical devices. ASTM International, pp 239–241Google Scholar
  15. Ioannidou E (2006) Therapeutic modulation of growth factors and cytokines in regenerative medicine. Curr Pharm Des 12(19):2397–2408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelch S, Steuer S, Schmidt AM, Lendlein A (2007) Shape-memory polymer networks from oligo [(epsilon-hydroxycaproate)-co-glycolate] dimethacrylates and butyl acrylate with adjustable hydrolytic degradation rate. Biomacromolecules 8(3):1018–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kume S (2005) Stem-cell-based approaches for regenerative medicine. Dev Growth Differ 47(6):393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langer R, Tirrell DA (2004) Designing materials for biology and medicine. Nature 428(6982):487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lemmon CA, Sniadecki NJ, Ruiz SA, Tan JL, Romer LH, Chen CS (2005) Shear force at the cell-matrix interface: enhanced analysis for microfabricated post array detectors. Mech Chem Biosyst 2(1):1–16Google Scholar
  20. Lendlein A, Kelch S (2005a) Degradable, multifunctional polymeric biomaterials with shape-memory. Mater Sci Forum 492–493:219–223Google Scholar
  21. Lendlein A, Kelch S (2005b) Shape-memory polymers as stimuli-sensitive implant materials. Clin Hemoreol Microcirc 32(2):105–116Google Scholar
  22. Lendlein A, Neuenschwander P, Suter UW (2000) Hydroxy-telechelic copolyesters with well-defined sequence structure through ring-opening polymerization, Macromol Chem Phys 201(11):1067–1076Google Scholar
  23. Lendlein A, Schmidt AM, Langer R (2001) AB-polymer networks based on oligo(epsilon-caprolactone) segments showing shape-memory properties. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(3):842–847Google Scholar
  24. Lerouge S, Guignot C, Tabrizian M, Ferrier D, Yagoubi N, Yahia L (2000) Plasma-based sterilization: effect on surface and bulk properties and hydrolytic stability of reprocessed polyurethane electrophysiology catheters. J Biomed Mater Res 52(4):774–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Messer RLW, Davis CM, Lewis JB, Adams Y, Wataha JC (2006) Attachment of human epithelial cells and periodontal ligament fibroblasts to tooth dentin. J Biomed Mater Res A 79A(1):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moses MA, Marikovsky M, Harper JW, Vogt P, Eriksson E, Klagsbrun M, Langer R (1996) Temporal study of the activity of matrix metalloproteinases and their endogenous inhibitors during wound healing. J Cell Biochem 60(3):379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mudera VC, Pleass R, Eastwood M, Tarnuzzer R, Schultz G, Khaw P, McGrouther DA, Brown RA (2000) Molecular responses of human dermal fibroblasts to dual cues: Contact guidance and mechanical load. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 45(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagase H, Visse R, Murphy G (2006) Structure and function of matrix metalloproteinases and TIMPs. Cardiovasc Res 69(3):562–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakashima Y, Sun DH, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB, Schurman DJ, Smith RL (1998) Induction of matrix metalloproteinase expression in human macrophages by orthopaedic particulate debris in vitro. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80B(4):694–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raghunath J, Rollo J, Sales KM, Butler PE, Seifalian AM (2007) Biomaterials and scaffold design: key to tissue-engineering cartilage. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 46:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ravanti L, Kahari VM (2000) Matrix metalloproteinases in wound repair (Review). Int J Mol Med 6(4):391–407Google Scholar
  32. Reed JA, Patarca R (2006) Regenerative dental medicine: stem cells and tissue engineering in dentistry. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 25(3):537–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rickert D, Lendlein A, Kelch S, Fuhrmann R, Franke RP (2002) Detailed evaluation of the agarose diffusion test as a standard biocompatibility procedure using an image analysis system. Influence of plasma sterilization on the biocompatibility of a recently developed photoset-polymer. Biomed Technik 47(11):285–289Google Scholar
  34. Rickert D, Lendlein A, Peters I, Moses MA, Franke RP (2006a) Biocompatibility Testing of Novel Multifunctional Polymeric Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering Applications in Head and Neck Surgery: An Overview. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryn 263(3):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rickert D, Franke RP, Fernandez CA, Kilroy S, Yan L, Moses MA (2007a) Establishment and biochemical characterization of primary cells of the upper aerodigestive tract. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 36(1):47–64Google Scholar
  36. Rickert D, Scheithauer MO, Coskun S, Kelch S, Lendlein A, Franke RP (2007b) The influence of a novel, polymeric biomaterial on the concentration of acute phase proteins in an animal model. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 36(4):301–311Google Scholar
  37. Rickert D, Scheithauer MO, Coskun S, Lendlein A, Kelch S, Franke RP (2006b) First results of the investigation of the stability and tissue integration of a degradable, elastomeric copolymer in an animal model. Biomed Tech 51(3):116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rickert D, Lendlein A, Schmidt AM, Kelch S, Roehlke W, Fuhrmann R, Franke RP (2003) In vitro cytotoxicity testing of AB-polymer networks based on oligo(epsilon-caprolactone) segments after different sterilization techniques. J Biomed Mater Res B 67B(2):722–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shastri VP, Lendlein A (2009) Materials in regenerative medicine. Adv Mater 21(32–33): 3231–3234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shen JY, Pan XY, Lim CH, Chan-Park MB, Zhu X, Beuerman RW (2007) Synthesis, characterization, and in vitro degradation of a biodegradable photo-cross-linked film from liquid poly(epsilon-caprolactone-co-lactide-co-glycolide) diacrylate. Biomacromolecules 8(2):376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sieminski AL, Gooch KJ (2000) Biomaterial-microvasculature interactions. Biomaterials 21(22):2233–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simmons A, Hyvarinen J, Poole-Warren L (2006) The effect of sterilisation on a poly(dimethylsiloxane)/poly(hexamethylene oxide) mixed macrodiol-based polyurethane elastomer. Biomaterials 27(25):4484–4497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singer AJ, Clark RAF (1999) Mechanisms of disease – cutaneous wound healing. N Engl J Med 341(10):738–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spector M (2006) Biomaterials-based tissue engineering and regenerative medicine solutions to musculoskeletal problems. Swiss Med Wkly 136(19–20):293–301Google Scholar
  45. Stangegaard M, Wang Z, Kutter JP, Dufva M, Wolff A (2006) Whole genome expression profiling using DNA microarray for determining biocompatibility of polymeric surfaces. Mol Biosyst 2(9):421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stayton PS, El-Sayed MEH, Murthy N, Bulmus V, Lackey C, Cheung C, Hoffman AS (2005) ‘Smart’ delivery systems for biomolecular therapeutics. Orthod Craniofac Res 8(3):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stephens P, Davies KJ, Occleston N, Pleass RD, Kon C, Daniels J, Khaw PT, Thomas DW (2001) Skin and oral fibroblasts exhibit phenotypic differences in extracellular matrix reorganization and matrix metalloproteinase activity. Br J Dermatol 144(2):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vaalamo M, Leivo T, Saarialho-Kere U (1999) Differential expression of tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMP-1,-2,-3, and-4) in normal and aberrant wound healing. Hum Pathol 30(7):795–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothee Rickert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rosemarie Fuhrmann
    • 2
  • Bernhard Hiebl
    • 3
  • Andreas Lendlein
    • 3
  • Ralf-Peter Franke
    • 2
  1. 1.Marienhospital StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Central Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Department of BiomaterialsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Polymer ResearchGKSS Research Center Geesthacht GmbHTeltowGermany

Personalised recommendations