In vitro and in vivo evaluations of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66/yttria-stabilized zirconia as a novel bioactive material for bone screws: Biocompatibility and bioactivity
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2020
In vitro and in vivo evaluations of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66/yttria-stabilized zirconia as a novel bioactive material for bone screws: Biocompatibility and bioactivity
Zirconia and its derivatives have been receiving increased levels of attention with regard to their potential application in bone tissue engineering. These materials are of particular interest because of their excellent characteristics, such as superior biological and mechanical properties. In this study, yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (YTZ)-reinforced nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (nHA/PA66) bone screws were prepared. The biocompatibility and bioactivity of nHA/PA66/YTZ were evaluated in vitro using MC3T3-E1 cells. Biocompatibility and bioactivity experiments (cell counting kit-8 tests, cell immunofluorescence analysis, and polymerase chain reaction) showed that nHA/PA66/YTZ could facilitate the biological functions of MC3T3-E1 cells. The attachment, proliferation, spreading, and expression of genes associated with osteogenesis (collagen 1, osteopontin, and osteocalcin) in cells cultured with the nHA/PA66/YTZ composite were all superior compared with the control groups (P < 0.05). In addition, nHA/PA66/YTZ bone screws were implanted into the femoral condyles of rabbits, and titanium screws were employed as a control group; postoperative histology and blood analysis revealed no obvious damage to the liver, kidneys, or any other major organs in either of the experimental groups. Moreover, nHA/PA66/YTZ screws resulted in significantly better bone-implant contact interfaces and enhanced formation of trabecular bone (P < 0.05); these characteristics were markedly better than those in the group that received titanium screws. These observations indicate that YTZ-reinforced nHA/PA66 composites have significant potential for applications in bone tissue engineering.
AlmouemenNKellyHMO’LearyC.Tissue engineering: understanding the role of biomaterials and biophysical forces on cell functionality through computational and structural biotechnology analytical methods. Comput Struct Biotechnol J2019;
17: 591–598.
2.
BARaoSPandyaHJ.Engineering approaches for characterizing soft tissue mechanical properties: a review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2019;
69: 127–140.
3.
AbouzeidREKhiariRBeneventiD, et al.
Biomimetic mineralization of three-dimensional printed alginate/TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibril scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules2018;
19: 4442–4452.
4.
YilmazBTahmasebifarABaranET.Bioprinting technologies in tissue engineering. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol2020;
171: 279–319.
5.
ZhaoCQazviniNTSadatiM, et al.
A pH-triggered, self-assembled, and bioprintable hybrid hydrogel scaffold for mesenchymal stem cell based bone tissue engineering. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2019;
11: 8749–8762.
6.
ZouLZhangYLiuX, et al.
Biomimetic mineralization on natural and synthetic polymers to prepare hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2019;
178: 222–229.
7.
ZulkifliFHHussainFSJHarunWSW, et al.
Highly porous of hydroxyethyl cellulose biocomposite scaffolds for tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol2019;
122: 562–571.
8.
HuCAshokDNisbetDR, et al.
Bioinspired surface modification of orthopedic implants for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2019;
219: 119366.
9.
QasimMChaeDSLeeNY.Advancements and frontiers in nano-based 3D and 4D scaffolds for bone and cartilage tissue engineering. Int J Nanomedicine2019;
14: 4333–4351.
10.
ZhangXYChenYPHanJ, et al.
Biocompatiable silk fibroin/carboxymethyl chitosan/strontium substituted hydroxyapatite/cellulose nanocrystal composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol2019;
136: 1247–1257.
11.
DziadekMKudlackovaRZimaA, et al.
Novel multicomponent organic-inorganic WPI/gelatin/CaP hydrogel composites for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A2019;
107: 2479–2491.
12.
SharifiFAtyabiSMNorouzianD, et al.
Polycaprolactone/carboxymethyl chitosan nanofibrous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering application. Int J Biol Macromol2018;
115: 243–248.
13.
Lewandowska-LancuckaJMystekKMignonA, et al.
Alginate- and gelatin-based bioactive photocross-linkable hybrid materials for bone tissue engineering. Carbohydr Polym2017;
157: 1714–1722.
14.
ZouQLiJNiuL, et al.
Modified n-HA/PA66 scaffolds with chitosan coating for bone tissue engineering: cell stimulation and drug release. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2017;
28: 1271–1285.
15.
QuYWangPManY, et al.
Preliminary biocompatible evaluation of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 composite porous membrane. Int J Nanomedicine2010;
5: 429–435.
16.
LiJZuoYChengX, et al.
Preparation and characterization of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 composite GBR membrane with asymmetric porous structure. J Mater Sci Mater Med2009;
20: 1031–1038.
17.
LuMLiaoJDongJ, et al.
An effective treatment of experimental osteomyelitis using the antimicrobial titanium/silver-containing nHP66 (nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66) nanoscaffold biomaterials. Sci Rep2016;
6: 39174.
18.
YaoMZHuang-FuMYLiuHN, et al.
Fabrication and characterization of drug-loaded nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 scaffolds modified with carbon nanotubes and silk fibroin. Int J Nanomedicine2016;
11: 6181–6194.
19.
ZhaoWHeBZhouA, et al.
D-RADA16-RGD-reinforced nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 ternary biomaterial for bone formation. Tissue Eng Regen Med2019;
16: 177–189.
20.
ChenGYinMLiuW, et al.
A novel height-adjustable nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 vertebral body for reconstruction of thoracolumbar structural stability after spinal tumor resection. World Neurosurg2019;
122: e206–e214.
21.
MaityRMajumderSRoychowdhuryA, et al.
Effect of plate geometry modifications to reduce stress shielding during healing stages for tibial fracture fixation. J Long Term Eff Med Implants2018;
28: 131–140.
22.
QuYZhengSDongR, et al.
Ti-24Nb-4Zr-8Sn alloy pedicle screw improves internal vertebral fixation by reducing stress-shielding effects in a porcine model. Biomed Res Int2018;
2018: 8639648.
23.
GuertlerAThomasPHerzingerT.[Pseudo allergic reaction to metal implant]. Hautarzt2018;
69: 14–15.
24.
AlrabeahGOBrettPKnowlesJC, et al.
The effect of metal ions released from different dental implant-abutment couples on osteoblast function and secretion of bone resorbing mediators. J Dent2017;
66: 91–101.
25.
VlesGFBrodermannMHRoussotMA, et al.
Carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK intramedullary nails defining the niche. Case Rep Orthop2019;
2019: 1538158.
26.
LiYWangDQinW, et al.
Mechanical properties, hemocompatibility, cytotoxicity and systemic toxicity of carbon fibers/poly(ether-ether-ketone) composites with different fiber lengths as orthopedic implants. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2019;
30: 1709–1724.
27.
WangJChaiJWangG, et al.
Strong and thermally insulating polylactic acid/glass fiber composite foam fabricated by supercritical carbon dioxide foaming. Int J Biol Macromol2019;
138: 144–155.
28.
YuanYLiuCHuangM.The structure and performance of short glass fiber/high-density polyethylene/polypropylene composite pipes extruded using a shearing(-)drawing compound stress field. Materials (Basel)2019;
12.
29.
SethuSNNamashivayamSDevendranS, et al.
Nanoceramics on osteoblast proliferation and differentiation in bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol2017;
98: 67–74.
30.
SoultMDLienWSavettDA, et al.
Effect of high-speed sintering on the properties of a zirconia material. Gen Dent2019;
67: 30–34.
31.
BegumSSAjayRDevakiV, et al.
Impact strength and dimensional accuracy of heat-cure denture base resin reinforced With ZrO2 Nanoparticles: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci2019;
11: S365–S370.
32.
AfrashtehfarKIDel FabbroM.Clinical performance of zirconia implants: a meta-review. J Prosthet Dent2020;
123: 419–426.
33.
DandoulakiCRigosAEKontonasakiE, et al.
In vitro evaluation of the shear bond strength and bioactivity of a bioceramic cement for bonding monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent2019;
122: 161.e1–167.e110.
34.
SongNWangZXingY, et al.
Evaluation of phase transformation and mechanical properties of metastable yttria-stabilized zirconia by nanoindentation. Materials (Basel)2019;
12: 1677.
35.
RoehlingSSchlegelKAWoelflerH, et al.
Zirconia compared to titanium dental implants in preclinical studies-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res2019;
30: 365–395.
36.
de OliveiraGRPozzerLCavalieri-PereiraL, et al.
Retraction: bacterial adhesion and colonization differences between zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo human study. J Periodontal Implant Sci2019;
49: 58.
37.
LiYLiHZhangJ, et al.
In vitro evaluation of an yttria-stabilized zirconia reinforced nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 ternary biomaterial: biomechanics, biocompatibility and bioactivity. RSC Adv2016;
6: 114086–114095.
38.
JungmannRSzaboMESchitterG, et al.
Local strain and damage mapping in single trabeculae during three-point bending tests. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2011;
4: 523–534.
39.
MorganEFUnnikrisnanGUHusseinAI.Bone mechanical properties in healthy and diseased states. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2018;
20: 119–143.
40.
KurodaPABda SilvaLMSousaK, et al.
Preparation, structural, microstructural, mechanical, and cytotoxic characterization of Ti-15Nb alloy for biomedical applications. Artif Organs 2020; 1–7.
41.
Landete-CastillejosTKierdorfHGomezS, et al.
Antlers - evolution, development, structure, composition, and biomechanics of an outstanding type of bone. Bone2019;
128: 115046.
42.
QiaoBLiJZhuQ, et al.
Bone plate composed of a ternary nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66/glass fiber composite: biomechanical properties and biocompatibility. Int J Nanomedicine2014;
9: 1423–1432.
43.
LiJManYZuoY, et al.
In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a nHA/PA66 composite membrane for guided bone regeneration. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2011;
22: 263–275.
44.
LiaoJZhangYGuanX, et al.
Synthesis and characterization of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 biocomposites reinforced with multi-walled carbon nanotubes. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2016;
27: 1674–1684.
45.
GuanXZhengGDaiK, et al.
Carbon nanotubes-adsorbed electrospun PA66 nanofiber bundles with improved conductivity and robust flexibility. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2016;
8: 14150–14159.
46.
AdachiKSuemoriHYasudaSY, et al.
Role of SOX2 in maintaining pluripotency of human embryonic stem cells. Genes Cells2010;
15: 455–470.
47.
ChoiYYoonDSLeeKM, et al.
Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell-driven bone regeneration by resveratrol-mediated SOX2 regulation. Aging Dis2019;
10: 818–833.
48.
DengQXOuYSZhuY, et al.
Clinical outcomes of two types of cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases: n-HA/PA66 cages versus PEEK cages. J Mater Sci Mater Med2016;
27: 102.
49.
XiongYRenCZhangB, et al.
Analyzing the behavior of a porous nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) composite for healing of bone defects. Int J Nanomedicine2014;
9: 485–494.
50.
YangYBaoHChaiQ, et al.
Toxicity, biodistribution and oxidative damage caused by zirconia nanoparticles after intravenous injection. Int J Nanomedicine2019;
14: 5175–5186.
51.
HeXReichlFXMilzS, et al.
Titanium and zirconium release from titanium- and zirconia implants in mini pig maxillae and their toxicity in vitro. Dent Mater2020;
36: 402–412.
52.
KalyoncuogluUTYilmazBKocSG, et al.
Investigation of surface structure and biocompatibility of chitosan-coated zirconia and alumina dental abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2018;
20: 1022–1029.
