| Literature DB >> 26511138 |
Radosław Olkowski1,2,3, Piotr Kaszczewski1,3, Joanna Czechowska4, Dominika Siek4, Dawid Pijocha4, Aneta Zima4, Anna Ślósarczyk4, Małgorzata Lewandowska-Szumieł5,6.
Abstract
Calcium phosphate cements (CPC) are valuable bone fillers. Recently they have been also considered as the basis for drug-, growth factors- or cells-delivery systems. Broad possibilities to manipulate CPC composition provide a unique opportunity to obtain materials with a wide range of physicochemical properties. In this study we show that CPC composition significantly influences cell response. Human bone derived cells were exposed to the several well-characterized different cements based on calcium phosphates, magnesium phosphates and calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CSH). Cell viability assays, live/dead staining and real-time observation of cells in contact with the materials (time-laps) were performed. Although all the investigated materials have successfully passed a standard cytocompatibility assay, cell behavior in a direct contact with the materials varied depending on the material and the experimental system. The most recommended were the α-TCP-based materials which proved suitable as a support for cells in a direct contact. The materials which caused a decrease of calcium ions concentration in culture induced the negative cell response, however this effect might be expected efficiently compensated in vivo. All the materials consisting of CSH had negative impact on the cells. The obtained results strongly support running series of cytocompatibility studies for preclinical evaluation of bone cements.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26511138 PMCID: PMC4624837 DOI: 10.1007/s10856-015-5589-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med ISSN: 0957-4530 Impact factor: 3.896
Solid and liquid phases of developed biomaterials
| Biomaterial | Solid phase | Liquid phase | L/P (g/g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 (I reference material) | DCPD ( | Sodium phosphate, | 0.33 |
| R2 (II reference material) | CSH (100 wt%) [ | REGULAR liquid [ | 0.50 |
| A1 | HA (46 wt%), | distilled water | 0.40 |
| A2 | HA (40 wt%), MPC (35 wt%), CSH (15 wt%), | distilled water | 0.48 |
| B1 | MgCHA (40 wt%), | 1.0 wt% chitosan solution in 0.3 wt% acetic acid | 0.54 |
| C1 | α-TCP (100 wt%), | 1.0 wt% chitosan solution in 0.5 wt% acetic acid | 0.48 |
| C2 | α-TCP (100 wt%), | 0.75 wt% methylcellulose solution in 2.0 wt% Na2HPO4 | 0.48 |
Phase composition of studied biomaterials after 4 weeks of setting and hardening
| Biomaterial | HA (wt%) | Struvite (NH4MgPO4·6H2O) (wt%) | CSD (CaSO4·2H2O) (wt%) | Brushite (CaHPO4·2H2O) (wt%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 47 | 53 | – | – |
| A2 | 40 | 45 | 7 | 8 |
| B1 | 34 | – | 66 | – |
| C1 | 100 | – | – | – |
| C2 | 100 | – | – | – |
Open porosity and pore size distribution of examined ceramic materials
| Biomaterial | Open porosity [%] | Porediameter [µm] |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | 28 | 0.017–1.600 (I max.: 0.026, II max.: 0.950) |
| A1 | 18 | 0.006–0.760 (I max.: 0.016, II max.: 0.260) |
| A2 | 31 | 0.008–1.200 (I max.: 0.014, II max.: 0.440) |
| B1 | 46 | 0.008–0.980 (I max.: 0.013, II max.: 0.710) |
| C1 | 39 | 0.006–0.480 (I max.: 0.030, II max.: 0.220) |
| C2 | 40 | 0.006–0.470 (I max.: 0.030, II max.: 0.160) |
Fig. 1Ca2+ concentration in tested extracts, compared to the Ca2+ concentration in basal, serum-free culture medium (DMEM)
Fig. 2Metabolic activity of hBDC cultured in extracts made of the investigated materials. Values expressed as percent of viability of cells cultured in standard medium (mean ± standard deviation). Solid bars represent viability of cells cultured in 100 % extracts, checked bars show viability of cells in 50 % extracts. Border cytotoxicity value (70 % of cell viability in standard culture medium) is shown as horizontal line. There were no statistically significant differences between the results obtained for the investigated materials and the border cytotoxicity value, except for the R2 and C2, where significantly higher cell viability was found in 50 % extracts (P ≪ 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively)
Fig. 3Metabolic activity of human bone-derived cells cultured on the surface of ceramic materials in 24-well culture plate. Values expressed as percent of viability of cells cultured on TCPS (mean ± standard deviation). Solid bars represent viability of cells cultured directly on the ceramic samples, while striped bars show viability of cells cultured on TCPS, next to the samples. For the examined materials the aggregate value (cell viability on the material + cell viability next to the material) did not differ significantly from the TCPS control, except for the R2 and B1, where it is significantly lower (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001 respectively). Microscopic pictures illustrating three types of cell behavior noticed on the surface of the materials (examples comes from the materials: R1, B1, C1) are shown above the chart
Fig. 4Human bone-derived cells cultured for 36 h next to the investigated materials monitored by time-lapse microscopy. Cell number growing in time can be observed for R1, C1 and C2 ceramics
Fig. 5Metabolic activity of cells cultured directly on the surface of ceramic materials in 96-well culture plate. Values expressed as percent of viability of cells cultured on TCPS (mean ± standard deviation). The highest values were obtained for C1 and C2 (no significant differences between them), while the results for the other materials were significantly lower (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001)