Biocompatibility and Bone-Repairing Effects: Comparison Between Porous Poly-Lactic-Co-Glycolic Acid and Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Poly(lactic acid) Scaffolds

Abstract

Copolymer composite scaffolds and bioceramic/polymer composite scaffolds are two representative forms of composite scaffolds used for bone tissue engineering. Studies to compare biocompatibility and bone-repairing effects between these two scaffolds are significant for selecting or improving the scaffold for clinical application. We prepared two porous scaffolds comprising poly-lactic-acid/poly-glycolic-acid (PLGA) and poly-lactic-acid/nano-hydroxyapatite (nHAP/PLA) respectively, and examined their biocompatibility with human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) through evaluating adhesion, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation potentials of hMSCs in the scaffold. Then, the PLGA scaffold with hMSCs (PM construct) and the nHAP/PLA scaffold with hMSCs (HPM construct) were transplanted into the rat calvarial defect areas to compare their effects on the bone reconstruction. The results showed that the nHAP/PLA scaffold was in favor of adhesion, matrix deposition and osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs. For in vivo transplantation, both HPM and PM constructs led to mineralization and osteogenesis in the defect area of rat. However, the area grafted with PM construct showed a better formation of mature bone than that with HPM construct. In addition, the evaluation of in vitro and in vivo degradation indicated that the degradation rate of nHAP/PLA scaffold was much lower than that of PLGA scaffold. It is inferred that the lower degradation of nHAP/PLA scaffold should result in its inferior bone reconstruction in rat calvaria. Therefore, the preparation of an ideal composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering should be taken into account of the balance between its biocompatibility, degradation rate, osteoconductivity and mechanical property.

The Impact of Bioceramic Scaffolds on Bone Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review

“…The variety in chemical composition of bioceramics contributes to their adjustable mechanical features, bioactivity, and degradation rate. Another strategy to produce scaffolds with tailored mechanical properties and resorbability, based on application needs, consists of the development of composite materials, containing bioceramics and polymers in different ratios [16,17]. To improve the performances of bioceramic scaffolds, the incorporation of growth factors stimulating osteogenesis and angiogenesis has been described [18,19].…”

Fabrication of polymeric biomaterials: a strategy for tissue engineering and medical devices

“…Biomimetic and biodegradable polysaccharides scaffolds derived from chitosan, [198][199][200][201] hyaluronic acid (HA), [202][203][204][205][206] and alginate, 207 [224][225][226][227][228][229] It has been concluded that these polymer based scaffolds have some advantages over ceramic and glass based ones, primarily because the properties of the polymer based scaffolds can easily be processed tailored to obtain suitable geometry for implantation. The major drawbacks with polymer scaffolds are low mechanical strength and shape retention failure, insufficient cell adhesion and growth, and hence, require surface modification with functional groups or incorporation of bioactive materials to form multicomponent biocompatible composite bone scaffolds [230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243] to enhance osteogenicity 244 for ultimate bone tissue engineering.…”

Acrylic Bone Cements: The Role of Nanotechnology in Improving Osteointegration and Tunable Mechanical Properties

“…144 145 Due to its biocompatibility and osteoinductivity, [146][147][148][149] adding HA to the bone cement can improve its mechanical properties as a consequence of an enhanced osteointegration. However, they are highly dependent on the amount incorporated, size and aspect ratio and surface properties.…”

“…164 Among these modifications, the addition of bioactive fillers, such as HA to enhance bioactivity has been extensively studied. 149 165 166 Chitosan (CS) was incorporated into the formulations to examine the effects on bone cement properties. It was observed that CS induced a reduction in curing temperature from 71.60 to 59.04 C when 0.1 g of CS per gram of PMMA was added.…”