| Literature DB >> 35415311 |
Chaoqian Zhao1, Weiye Liu1,2, Min Zhu2, Chengtie Wu1,3, Yufang Zhu1,3.
Abstract
Bone defects caused by trauma, tumor, congenital abnormality and osteoarthritis, etc. have been substantially impacted the lives and health of human. Artificial bone implants, like bioceramic-based scaffolds, provide significant benefits over biological counterparts and are critical for bone repair and regeneration. However, it is highly probable that bacterial infections occur in the surgical procedures or on bioceramic-based scaffolds. Therefore, it is of great significance to obtain bioceramic-based scaffolds with integrative antibacterial and osteogenic functions for treating bone implant-associated infection and promoting bone repair. To fight against infection problems, bioceramic-based scaffolds with various antibacterial strategies are developed for bone repair and regeneration and also have made great progresses. This review summarizes recent progresses in bioceramic-based scaffolds with antibacterial function, which include drug-induced, ion-mediated, physical-activated and their combined antibacterial strategies according to specific antibacterial mechanism. Finally, the challenges and opportunities of antibacterial bioceramic-based scaffolds are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial activity; Bioceramic-based scaffolds; Bone repair; Bone tissue engineering; Implant-associated infection
Year: 2022 PMID: 35415311 PMCID: PMC8965760 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.02.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioact Mater ISSN: 2452-199X
Fig. 1Antibacterial strategies of bioceramic-based scaffolds based on various antibacterial mechanisms [[31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]].
Some typical bioceramic-based scaffolds loaded with different drugs for bone implant-associated infection.
| Drug categories | Scaffolds (e.g.) | Drugs loaded in scaffolds | Antibacterial mechanisms | Bacterial species | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tetracyclines | PCL/MBG | Doxycycline | Inhibiting synthesis of protein | [ | |
| Gelatin/HA | Tetracycline | [ | |||
| β-lactams | CS/calcium phosphate cements; | Penicillin | Inhibiting synthesis of cell walls | [ | |
| Agarose/nano hydroxycarbonateapatite | Cephalexin | [ | |||
| Aminoglycosides | TiO2 scaffold; | Gentamicin | Inhibiting synthesis of protein | [ | |
| Quinolones | Polyurethane/silica/nano-hydroxyapatite | Levofloxacin | Inhibiting synthesis or function of nucleic acid | [ | |
| Monticellite | Ciprofloxacin | [ | |||
| Glycopeptides | Baghdadite (Ca3ZrSi2O9) | Vancomycin | Inhibiting synthesis of cell wall | [ | |
| Other drugs | Alginate/HA | Chlorhexidine | Breaking osmotic barrier of cell membranes | [ | |
| Alginate/calcium phosphate | Berberine | Reducing the number of bacteria fimbria | [ | ||
| HA/calcium sulphate | Rifampicin | Inhibiting synthesis or function of nucleic acid | [ |
Fig. 2Doxycycline (DOX)-loaded bioceramic-based scaffolds with antibacterial property. (A) Schematic diagram of 3D-bioprinted scaffold for promoting bone repair and inhibiting bone implant-associated infection. (a1) fabrication of 3D bioprinting scaffolds and (a2) mechanisms of antibacterial property and BMP2 controlled release ability of scaffolds. (B) Doxycycline release and in vitro antibacterial effects. (b1) doxycycline release curve within 21 days and (b2) broad-spectrum antibacterial effects of scaffolds with doxycycline (reprinted with permission from ref. [32]).
Fig. 33D printed scaffolds loaded with berberine for bone implant-associated infection and bone repair. (A) Schematic diagram of the scaffold fabrication process; (B) Berberine release profile and statistical analysis of antibacterial results. (b1) release curves of berberine from scaffolds, (b2) the effects different scaffolds on statistical diameter of the bacteriostatic zones (reprinted with permission from ref. [55]).
Ions released from bioceramic-based scaffolds for treating bone implant-associated infection.
| Categories | Scaffolds (e.g.) | Released ions | Antibacterial mechanisms | Bacteria used for antibacterial assays | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkali and alkaline earth ions | CaO–P2O5–SiO2–RbO MBG scaffold; | Ca2+, Na+, Mg2+, Rb+ | Inducing the increase of solution pH and osmotic pressure | [ | |
| Heavy metal ions | Ag@rGO modified β-TCP scaffold | Ag+ | Inducing ROS; Breaking bacterial cell membranes | [ | |
| PCL/SiO2–CaO–P2O5–ZnO MBG scaffold | Zn2+ | Destabilizing membrane and enhancing permeability; Deactivating nucleic acids and enzymes; Killing bacterial by inducing ROS | [ | ||
| SiO2–CaO–P2O5–CuO MBG scaffold | Cu2+ | Disrupting bacterial cell wall; Inhibiting DNA replication; Inducing ROS to inhibit bacterial growth | [ | ||
| Other ions | Na2O–CaO–P2O5–La2O3 BG scaffold | La3+ | Causing leakage of cell contents; Inactivating genetic materials, enzymes and proteins; Bacterial apoptosis | [ | |
| ZrO2 modified Chitosan/poly (ethylene glycol)/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffold | Zr4+ | Interacting with sulphur-containing proteins and DNA; Attacking respiratory chain; Inhibiting cell division and causing death | [ | ||
| KI-loaded bilayer scaffold | I− | Damaging cell membrane by reacting with respiratory chain-associated enzymes and membrane proteins | [ |
Fig. 4SiO2–CaO–P2O5–CuO MBG scaffolds with angiogenesis, osteogenesis and antibacterial activity. (A) SEM images of the MBG scaffolds. (a1, a2) 0Cu-MBG, (a3, a4) 1Cu-MBG, (a5, a6) 2Cu-MBG, and (a7, a8) 5Cu-MBG. (B) Angiogenesis capacity of the scaffolds. (b1) VEGF secretion by ELISA, (b2) HIF-1a, VEGF and Tubulin expression by western blotting, (b3) HIF-1a expression and (b4) VEGF expression for hBMSCs. (C) Antibacterial evaluation of the scaffolds. (D) Osteogenesis assay of the ionic extracts from Cu-MBG particles. (d1) ALP, (d2) OPN and (d3) OCN for hBMSCs (reprinted with permission from ref. [93]).
Some typical bioceramic-based scaffolds with physical antibacterial functions for bone implant-associated infection.
| Categories | Scaffolds (e.g.) | Antibacterial mechanisms of scaffolds | Bacteria used for antibacterial assays | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface charge | Chitosan/zoledronic acid/nano hydroxyapatite scaffold; chitosan/zein/silica scaffold | Positively charged surface disrupting the negatively charged membrane of bacteria; Covering bacterial cell wall to block transport; Penetrating bacterial cell wall to prevent DNA replication | [ | |
| Pressure (surface charge) | Potassium-sodium niobate scaffold; (Ba,Ca) (Ti,Zr)O3 scaffold | Piezoelectric effects inducing surface charge; Surface charge generating micro-electric field and ROS around the material to kill bacteria | [ | |
| Photothermal effect | Free carbon-containing forsterite scaffold; Forsterite-hydroxyapatite scaffold | Photothermic effect generating ROS and increasing temperature to kill bacteria | [ | |
| Magnetothermal effect | Mg2SiO4–CoFe2O4 scaffold | Magnetothermal effect generating thermal energy and increasing temperature to kill bacteria | [ | |
| Sonodynamic effect | Palacos (bone cement) scaffold | Attaching to certain cellular components and inducing damage under ultrasound irradiation; Generating ROS inducing oxidative damage to the cell wall | MRSA, | [ |
| Photocatalysis | GDY-modified TiO2 nanofiber scaffold; TiO2 scaffold | Generating ROS to kill bacteria | MRSA, | [ |
Fig. 5Forsterite scaffolds with photothermal-induced antibacterial activity by 3D printing and polymer-derived ceramics strategy. (A) Schematic diagram for fabrication of forsterite scaffolds, (B) Photothermal properties of forsterite scaffolds under dry and wet conditions, and (C) In vitro evaluation of photothermal-induced antibacterial activity of forsterite scaffolds (reprinted with permission from ref. [22]).
Fig. 6Graphdiyne-modified TiO2 nanofiber scaffold with osteogenesis and enhanced photocatalytic antibacterial activity irradiated by UV light. (A) Schematic diagram of the dual function of GDY/TiO2 in orthopedic implant infection. (B) Electron spin resonance for (b1) •O2− and (b2) •OH generation after TiO2 and GDY/TiO2 induced by UV. (C) In vitro and in vivo antibacterial evaluation of the GDY/TiO2 nanofiber scaffold. (c1) quantitative analysis of in vitro bacterial colonies, (c2) statistical analysis of the live/dead staining of in vitro antibacterial tests, (c3) quantitative analysis of the bacterial colonies of the infected femurs treated with TiO2 and GDY/TiO2 scaffolds (reprinted with permission from ref. [36]).
Some typical bioceramic-based scaffolds with combined antibacterial strategies for bone implant-associated infection.
| Antibacterial strategies | Scaffolds (e.g.) | Specific objects | Bacteria used in antibacterial assays | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combined drug-induced and drug-induced | PHBHHx/80SiO2–15CaO–5P2O5 MBG | Levofloxacin, vancomycin and rifampicin; Isoniazid and rifampicin | [ | |
| Combined drug-induced and ion mediated | Enoxacin-loaded CaO–P2O5–SiO2–RbO MBG scaffold | Enoxacin and Rb2+; Vancomycin and Zn2+ | [ | |
| Combined ion mediated and ion mediated | poly (octanediol citrate)/SiO2–CaO–ZnO-Ga2O3 scaffold | Zn2+ and Ga3+ | [ | |
| Combined drug-induced and charge effect | Vancomycin-loaded CS/Si-doped hydroxyapatite scaffold | CS and chlorhexidine; CS and Penicillin; CS and vancomycin | [ | |
| Combined charge effect and ion-mediated | Chitosan/polyethylene oxide/ZnO scaffold | CS and Zn2+; | [ | |
| Combined photothermal effect and ion-mediated | Forsterite scaffolds | Forsterite and free carbon | [ | |
| Combined photothermal effect and charge effect | HA scaffold | BPs and ZnL2 | [ | |
| Combined charge effect and physical therapy | Polyethylenimine/MXene@CeO2 scaffold | Cationic polyethylenimine and MXene (Ti3C2Tx) | MRSA, | [ |
Fig. 7ZnL2-BPs@HA scaffolds with photothermal effect for treating bone implant-associated infection. (A) Schematic illustration of the preparation process for ZnL2-BPs@HA scaffold. (B) Photothermal effect, surface charge of nanomaterials and ROS production by the scaffolds. (b1) photothermal heating curves of the scaffolds immersed in PBS upon NIR irradiation, (b2) zeta potentials of ZnL2, BPs and ZnL2-BPs, (b3) quantitative analysis of ROS production of different groups. (C) In vitro antibacterial effects of scaffolds after different treatments. (c1) antibacterial efficiency of the scaffolds with/without NIR irradiation, (c2) quantitative analysis of live/dead staining (reprinted with permission from ref. [121]).