Nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 composite scaffold conducting osteogenesis to repair mandible defect

Abstract

In this study, nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 composite scaffold was prepared by combining thermally induced phase separation and particulate leaching. The morphological structure and compositional phases of the scaffold were analyzed, while the in vitro and in vivo biological behaviors were assessed by comparing with the control of the commercial porous polyethylene (MEDPOR ®). Results indicate that nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 scaffold showed excellent biocompatibility and the ability to accelerate bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells differentiation in vitro and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells/nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66-engineered constructs exhibited much better in vivo biocompatibility and osteoconductivity with the surrounding host bone than bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells/MEDPOR constructs. The porous nano-hydroxyapatite/ polyamide66 scaffold demonstrates a potential to be applied in the orthopedic or maxillofacial surgery.

Synthesis of Natural Nano-Hydroxyapatite from Snail Shells and Its Biological Activity: Antimicrobial, Antibiofilm, and Biocompatibility

“…Because nano-dimensional and nano-crystalline apatites are often regarded as model compounds for dental enamel due to chemical and phase similarities [21], their use in restorative dentistry has a number of promising benefits, including intrinsic radio-opaque response, enhanced polishability, and improved wear performance. They also have a hardness that is comparable to that of actual teeth [22].…”

Tissue engineering in mandibular reconstruction: osteogenesis-inducing scaffolds

“…Nano-HA is of interest because it has been shown to increase the mechanical properties and improve the protein adsorption capacity of the polymer, while also acting as a substrate for cell attachment and migration during bone regeneration [76] . Polyamide66 is a synthetic polymer chosen by Cai et al [77] to combine with HA due to its biocompatibility, high tensile strength, and its similarity to collagen in chemical structure and functional groups [78] . When combined with BMSCs in a mandibular defect, this scaffold showed greater biocompatibility and osteoconductivity with the surrounding host bone compared with commercial porous polyethylene (MEDPOR) constructs seeded with BMSCs [77] .…”

“…Polyamide66 is a synthetic polymer chosen by Cai et al [77] to combine with HA due to its biocompatibility, high tensile strength, and its similarity to collagen in chemical structure and functional groups [78] . When combined with BMSCs in a mandibular defect, this scaffold showed greater biocompatibility and osteoconductivity with the surrounding host bone compared with commercial porous polyethylene (MEDPOR) constructs seeded with BMSCs [77] .…”

A Novel Strategy for Fabrication of Polyamide 66/Nanohydroxyapatite Composite Bone Repair Scaffolds by Low-Temperature Three-Dimensional Printing

“…16,28 Traditional methods for preparing porous scaffolds, such as extrusion molding, injection molding, foam molding thermally induced phase separation (TIPS), and particulate leaching, each have their limitations. 29,30 Extrusion can produce accurate shapes at a lower cost, but it is not suitable for the manufacture of scaffolds with complex shapes and variable cross sections, as it lacks the continuous porous structure necessary for tissue growth. Injection molding can produce high quality scaffolds with accurate dimensions and good surface quality, but production often results in closed surfaces, hindering tissue integration.…”

“…Porous bone repair scaffolds with interconnective pore structure play an important role in the process of bone repair due to their three-dimensional spatial structure, which is suitable for the growth of cells and bone tissue. Although PA66/HAp composites have many advantages in bone repair, there is still no ideal method for preparing porous scaffolds with controllable architecture, which limit their wide application. , Traditional methods for preparing porous scaffolds, such as extrusion molding, injection molding, foam molding thermally induced phase separation (TIPS), and particulate leaching, each have their limitations. , Extrusion can produce accurate shapes at a lower cost, but it is not suitable for the manufacture of scaffolds with complex shapes and variable cross sections, as it lacks the continuous porous structure necessary for tissue growth. Injection molding can produce high quality scaffolds with accurate dimensions and good surface quality, but production often results in closed surfaces, hindering tissue integration.…”