Literature DB >> 32042442

Biomaterials in orthopaedics: the past and future with immune modulation.

Gun-Il Im1.   

Abstract

Orthopaedics owes its current status of advanced care to the development of biomaterial science more than any other clinical medical specialty. The purpose of this brief review is to introduce the history and present status of biomaterials in orthopaedic field and cast a perspective on the future use of biomaterials to treat musculoskeletal disorders with particular emphasis on immune modulation. While the biomaterials in orthopaedics started from inert materials to replace the function and structure of hard tissue such as bone and cartilage, regenerative medicine will play a greater role in preventing the traumatic loss of tissues, as well as in the earlier stages of diseases. The understanding and modulation of immune response to biomaterials will further lead to the better incorporation of implants into host tissue or the near-perfect regeneration of host tissue.
© The Author(s). 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomaterials; History; Immune response; Orthopaedics; Perspective

Year:  2020        PMID: 32042442      PMCID: PMC7001269          DOI: 10.1186/s40824-020-0185-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomater Res        ISSN: 1226-4601


Introduction

A biomaterial is a substance that has been engineered to take a form which, alone or as part of a complex system, is used to direct, by control of interactions with components of living systems, the course of any therapeutic or diagnostic procedure [1]. Orthopaedics, which is a branch of clinical medicine that specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal disease and trauma in the spine and extremities, owes its current status of advanced care to the development of biomaterial science more than any other clinical medical specialty. Biomaterials can be used to restore or augment the physiological function of diseased or damaged tissues via tissue replacement or regeneration in orthopaedics [2]. The purpose of this brief review is to introduce the history and present status of biomaterials in orthopedic field and cast a perspective on the future use of biomaterials to treat musculoskeletal disorders.

History and current application of biomaterials in orthopaedics

Orthopaedics started in the 18th century as a group of techniques which used non-surgical means to correct deformities in growing children. At that time, surgical treatment of bone and joint disorders was not possible due to the lack of antiseptic methods and anesthesia which would make operation safe and endurable. Development of inhalation anesthesia and antiseptic methods in 19th century made general surgery available for suffering patients. On the other hand, a lack of suitable biocompatible material prevented bone and joint surgery from being an option in deformity correction or fracture management until the early 20th century. The development of metallic engineering in last century produced various biocompatible alloys, including stainless steel. Plates, screws, and nails that can be used to fix the bone were devised using those materials, which revolutionized fracture care. Injuries that were once treated by suspending the limb in traction for a month or by wrapping the injury in a heavy cast were now treated by internal fixation. More refined biocompatible metal alloys, such as cobalt chrome alloys, are now the primary material used for artificial joints, which require permanent implantation. The development of chemical engineering has also produced polymeric material, such as ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), which have been gradually employed as bearing materials and bonding materials for artificial joints. Bioinert ceramics such as aluminum oxide or zirconium oxide rank as one of hardest materials found in the earth. These materials are now also used as bearing material in joint replacements. While first generation ceramics were fraught with frequent component breakage, the second generation bioinert ceramics, i.e. alumina augmented with zirconia, are now widely used in Korea, and almost replace UHMWPE as the bearing material of choice in total hip arthroplasty. These materials are expected to be used continuously for joint replacement. On the other hand, bioactive ceramics, such as calcium phosphates or calcium sulfates, are used as bone substitutes which fill up bone defects and function as osteo-conductive materials. Biocompatible & bioabsorbable polymeric materials such as polyglycolic acid (PGA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polydioxanone (PDO) have been used as suture materials for a decade. These materials are now developed into screws, pins, and plates. Furthermore, these absorbable polymers as used as scaffolds for tissue engineering of cartilage and bone.

Regenerative medicine and immune response in biomaterials

While replacements using biomaterials will continue to be improved upon and will continue to be used to treat advanced diseases at a reduced cost of implanted materials, regenerative medicine will play a greater role in preventing the traumatic loss of tissues, as well as in the earlier stages of diseases. Stem cells, in combination with biomaterials, will be essential for those tissue engineering approaches. Stem cell–based regenerative approaches have focused on implanting cells that have been seeded or encapsulated in biomaterials. Exogenous stem cell application has not yet proven to be generally effective for the regeneration of most tissues lost by degenerative processes or trauma. While it is expected that these exogenous cells are engrafted into host tissue, most of the cells perish after short period time. Furthermore, inflammation takes place at the site of implantation. As a result, immune response has recently developed into a big issue in the area of tissue engineering [2]. Regenerative power and the development of immune system are inversely related relationship in mammals. Evolutionary and developmental advances in the immune system came with the loss of capacity to fully regenerate damaged tissues [3-5]. Most mammalian tissues do not regenerate themselves. This is related to the their highly developed immune system [6]. In case of tissue damage, resident precursor cell is activated to proliferate, or a scar is formed. Cellular debris is also rapidly cleared to remove potentially toxic or immunogenic materials. Phagocytes are activated to secrete immune-modulatory factors. Macrophages in mammalian cells are in charge of those functions and play a primary role in innate immunity. Interestingly, macrophages show polarized, biphasic responses to tissue injury. Under inflammatory environments, macrophages polarize into classically activated (M1) or alternatively activated (M2) subtypes which differ in their function and marker/cytokine profiles [7]. M1 cells typically produce pro-inflammatory cytokines and nitric oxides for host defense, which can lead to host tissue damage. On the other hand, M2 macrophages secrete anti-inflammatory and immune-modulatory substances, which mediates the resolution of inflammation and the wound healing, causing tissue repair. Timely activation and balance of each macrophage subtype is important for tissue healing. As early infiltration by M1 macrophages clears necrotic tissue [8, 9], disruption of macrophage polarization may impair tissue regeneration [10].

Immuno-modulating biomaterials

In the future, the concept of modulating an immune response towards the optimal clinical result will be widely applied in orthopaedic biomaterials. Immuno-modulating biomaterials can be broadly categorized into two: (1) biomaterials for replacement that integrate within the body and remain permanently inside on implantation, causing minimal inflammation and fibrous tissue formation; (2) biomaterials for regeneration that offer initial support and stimulate the formation of new tissue but eventually are degraded in a controlled way over time [2].

Biomaterials for replacement

Biomaterials for replacement are typically long-term (> 20 years) or permanently implantable devices. They are composed of polymers, ceramics, or metals that are very stable mechanically and show minimal host response when implanted [11]. Biologically inert implants that minimize the cell-implant interactions in the microenvironment had been previously preferred [12]. Those implants usually have native proteins adsorbed on the surface, which promote the formation of provisional matrix and function as a buffer between the biomaterial and the host. Also, precise surgical techniques minimize the relative motion between the implant and host tissue [2]. Contrarily, some cell-implant interactions can enhance immune tolerance and integration of implant into host tissue in certain conditions. Titanium implants for joint replacements demonstrate higher osseointegration when the surface is reformed to induce the migration and attachment of osteoblasts [13, 14]. Such alterations may also subsequently induce a pro-M2 polarization, thereby providing a favorable immune environment for bone remodeling. Modifying surface chemistries and roughness can incline the polarization to M2 type, which will in turn lead to greater secretion of regenerative/anti-inflammatory factors and minimize the formation of fibrous tissue [13, 15, 16]. Recent advancement in bioengineering blurs the boundary between replacement and regenerative biomaterials. Numerous coating technologies on replacement implants are functionally analogous to those used for regenerative medicine [2].

Biomaterials for regeneration

Biomaterials for regeneration aim to restore the lost structure and function of damaged tissue [2]. These materials should degrade in a period spanning several days to months while promoting the regeneration of host tissue that includes the regenerated matrices [15, 17]. The initial M1 response recruits inflammatory cells to the implantation site and instigates the foreign body response [15, 18, 19], which is a necessary early event for wound healing. However, prolonged presence of M1 macrophages leads to the production of cytotoxic reactive oxygen products [20, 21]. Also, fibrous capsule formation from extended inflammation can impair the biomaterials’ capacity to promote tissue formation or hinder its ability to degrade as intended. Thus, a succeeding transition to the M2 type is necessary to promotes tissue remodeling [2]. The anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4, IL-10) or small molecules (steroids), can be used to modulate the immune response so that native signaling is overwhelmed and directed to M2 polarization to macrophage [22, 23]. This could be done by incorporating them into controlled release systems [23, 24]. Several biochemical and biophysical properties may be utilized to influence macrophage polarization [25, 26]. The surface topography, including pore size of the scaffold, can be modulated to induce optimal macrophage polarization [27-29]. However, these modification of biomaterial designs to modulate macrophage behavior directly should be done with considerations for undesired effects on other types of cells that contribute to tissue regeneration [2, 30].

Orthopedic biomaterials in the future

Orthopaedics has benefited from the advances in biomaterials. Orthopaedic biomaterials started from temporary implants to fix bone to permanent implant materials and bioabsorbable implants. In the future, orthopaedic biomaterial will find a place in the regeneration of living tissue, as well as replacing it. Ongoing research will reveal more details of the inherent qualities of biomaterials and their role in immune-modulation. This insight into biomaterial-immune response interaction will finally lead to an ultimate set of principles and help to create a new group of immuno-modulating biomaterials that can actively direct the innate immune system towards better incorporation of implants into host tissue or the near-perfect regeneration of host tissue.

Conclusion

While the biomaterials in orthopaedics started from inert materials to replace the function and structure of hard tissue such as bone and cartilage, regenerative medicine will play a greater role in preventing the traumatic loss of tissues, as well as in the earlier stages of diseases. The understanding and modulation of immune response to biomaterials will further lead to the better incorporation of implants into host tissue or the near-perfect regeneration of host tissue.
  29 in total

Review 1.  Monocyte and macrophage biology: an overview.

Authors:  Andrew J Rees
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 5.299

Review 2.  The chemokine system in diverse forms of macrophage activation and polarization.

Authors:  Alberto Mantovani; Antonio Sica; Silvano Sozzani; Paola Allavena; Annunciata Vecchi; Massimo Locati
Journal:  Trends Immunol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 16.687

3.  Sensitivity of alveolar macrophages to substrate mechanical and adhesive properties.

Authors:  Sophie Féréol; Redouane Fodil; Béatrice Labat; Stéphane Galiacy; Valérie M Laurent; Bruno Louis; Daniel Isabey; Emmanuelle Planus
Journal:  Cell Motil Cytoskeleton       Date:  2006-06

Review 4.  Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration.

Authors:  L Le Guéhennec; A Soueidan; P Layrolle; Y Amouriq
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2006-08-14       Impact factor: 5.304

5.  Porous implants modulate healing and induce shifts in local macrophage polarization in the foreign body reaction.

Authors:  Eric M Sussman; Michelle C Halpin; Jeanot Muster; Randall T Moon; Buddy D Ratner
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 6.  Macroscale delivery systems for molecular and cellular payloads.

Authors:  Cathal J Kearney; David J Mooney
Journal:  Nat Mater       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 43.841

Review 7.  Immune responses to implants - a review of the implications for the design of immunomodulatory biomaterials.

Authors:  Sandra Franz; Stefan Rammelt; Dieter Scharnweber; Jan C Simon
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 8.  Macrophage polarization: an opportunity for improved outcomes in biomaterials and regenerative medicine.

Authors:  Bryan N Brown; Buddy D Ratner; Stuart B Goodman; Salomon Amar; Stephen F Badylak
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 9.  Tissue engineering.

Authors:  R Langer; J P Vacanti
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-05-14       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 10.  Alternative activation of macrophages: mechanism and functions.

Authors:  Siamon Gordon; Fernando O Martinez
Journal:  Immunity       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 31.745

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Current Knowledge on Biomaterials for Orthopedic Applications Modified to Reduce Bacterial Adhesive Ability.

Authors:  Valeria Allizond; Sara Comini; Anna Maria Cuffini; Giuliana Banche
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-15

Review 2.  Mixed oxide nanotubes in nanomedicine: A dead-end or a bridge to the future?

Authors:  Masoud Sarraf; Bahman Nasiri-Tabrizi; Chai Hong Yeong; Hamid Reza Madaah Hosseini; Saeed Saber-Samandari; Wan Jefrey Basirun; Takuya Tsuzuki
Journal:  Ceram Int       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 4.527

3.  Evaluation of a Cell-Free Collagen Type I-Based Scaffold for Articular Cartilage Regeneration in an Orthotopic Rat Model.

Authors:  Marta Anna Szychlinska; Giovanna Calabrese; Silvia Ravalli; Anna Dolcimascolo; Paola Castrogiovanni; Claudia Fabbi; Caterina Puglisi; Giovanni Lauretta; Michelino Di Rosa; Alessandro Castorina; Rosalba Parenti; Giuseppe Musumeci
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Clinical observation of mineralized collagen bone grafting after curettage of benign bone tumors.

Authors:  Chong Gao; Zhi-Ye Qiu; Jian-Wen Hou; Wei Tian; Jian-Ming Kou; Xi Wang
Journal:  Regen Biomater       Date:  2020-12-15

Review 5.  Applications of Biocompatible Scaffold Materials in Stem Cell-Based Cartilage Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Xia Zhao; Daniel A Hu; Di Wu; Fang He; Hao Wang; Linjuan Huang; Deyao Shi; Qing Liu; Na Ni; Mikhail Pakvasa; Yongtao Zhang; Kai Fu; Kevin H Qin; Alexander J Li; Ofir Hagag; Eric J Wang; Maya Sabharwal; William Wagstaff; Russell R Reid; Michael J Lee; Jennifer Moriatis Wolf; Mostafa El Dafrawy; Kelly Hynes; Jason Strelzow; Sherwin H Ho; Tong-Chuan He; Aravind Athiviraham
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-03-25

6.  Enhanced osseointegration of dental implants with reduced graphene oxide coating.

Authors:  Yong Cheol Shin; Ji-Hyeon Bae; Jong Ho Lee; Iruthayapandi Selestin Raja; Moon Sung Kang; Bongju Kim; Suck Won Hong; Jung-Bo Huh; Dong-Wook Han
Journal:  Biomater Res       Date:  2022-03-21

Review 7.  Researching progress on bio-reactive electrogenic materials with electrophysiological activity for enhanced bone regeneration.

Authors:  Shaojie Dong; Yuwei Zhang; Yukun Mei; Yifei Zhang; Yaqi Hao; Beilei Liang; Weijiang Dong; Rui Zou; Lin Niu
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-07-25

8.  Ternary MXene-loaded PLCL/collagen nanofibrous scaffolds that promote spontaneous osteogenic differentiation.

Authors:  Seok Hyun Lee; Sangheon Jeon; Xiaoxiao Qu; Moon Sung Kang; Jong Ho Lee; Dong-Wook Han; Suck Won Hong
Journal:  Nano Converg       Date:  2022-08-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.