| Literature DB >> 36247529 |
Se-Kwon Kim1, Sesha Subramanian Murugan2, Pandurang Appana Dalavi2, Sebanti Gupta2, Sukumaran Anil3, Gi Hun Seong4, Jayachandran Venkatesan2,4.
Abstract
Biomimetic materials for better bone graft substitutes are a thrust area of research among researchers and clinicians. Autografts, allografts, and synthetic grafts are often utilized to repair and regenerate bone defects. Autografts are still considered the gold-standard method/material to treat bone-related issues with satisfactory outcomes. It is important that the material used for bone tissue repair is simultaneously osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic. To overcome this problem, researchers have tried several ways to develop different materials using chitosan-based nanocomposites of silver, copper, gold, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide, and biosilica. The combination of materials helps in the expression of ideal bone formation genes of alkaline phosphatase, bone morphogenic protein, runt-related transcription factor-2, bone sialoprotein, and osteocalcin. In vitro and in vivo studies highlight the scientific findings of antibacterial activity, tissue integration, stiffness, mechanical strength, and degradation behaviour of composite materials for tissue engineering applications.Entities:
Keywords: antibacterial activity; biomimetic materials; bone graft substitutes; chitosan; gold; osteoinductive; silver
Year: 2022 PMID: 36247529 PMCID: PMC9531556 DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.13.92
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol ISSN: 2190-4286 Impact factor: 3.272
Figure 1The bone structure. The magnified image shows the physiological arrangement of the bone matrix. The internal structure of the bone has the 100–500 µm osteon which contains 300 nm collagen fibrils, hydroxyapatite crystals, and 1.5 nm tropocollagen.
Combinations of chitosan with several polymeric materials and nanoparticles to mimic the natural bone function.
| S. No. | Materials | Methods | Cell line/animal | Bacteria | Ref. |
|
|
|||||
| 1 | chitosan–silver | coating | rabbit |
|
[ |
| 2 | chitosan–silver | electrophoretic deposition | MG-63 cells/rat |
|
[ |
| 3 | chitosan–diatomite | freeze-drying | MG-63 cells/Saos-2 cells/human osteoblasts | – | [ |
| 4 | chitosan–silica | cross-linking | – | – | [ |
| 5 | chitosan–silver | self-assembly | – | [ |
|
| 6 | chitosan–collagen | cross-linking | MC3T3-E1 cells | – | [ |
| 7 | chitosan–carbon nanotubes | sonication | – | – | [ |
| 8 | chitosan–carbon nanotubes | electrophoretic deposition | MC3T3-E1 cells | – | [ |
| 9 | chitosan–reduced graphene oxide | self-assembly | MG-63 cells | – | [ |
| 10 | chitosan–graphene oxide | sonication and lyophilisation | MC3T3-E1 cells | – | [ |
| 11 | chitosan–graphene oxide | solvent casting | MG-63 cells | [ |
|
| 12 | chitosan–tetraethoxysilane | sol–gel | human osteoblasts | – | [ |
| 13 | chitosan–bioactive glass | sol–gel/coprecipitation | human osteosarcoma cells | – | [ |
| 14 | chitosan–mesoporous silica nanoparticles | electrospinning | MC3T3-E1 cells | – | [ |
| 15 | chitosan film–graphene oxide–hydroxyapatite–gold | hydrothermal and gel casting | C3H10T1/2 | [ |
|
| 16 | chitosan–silver nanoparticle | reduction | human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells | – | [ |
| 17 | chitosan–carbon nanotubes–gelatin | sonication | – | [ |
|
| 18 | chitosan–hydroxyapatite–zinc oxide | stirring and self-assembly | MG-63 cells | [ |
|
| 19 | chitosan–hydroxyapatite–zinc oxide–palladium | coating | dental pulp stem cells |
|
[ |
| 20 | chitosan–zinc–gelatin | electrophoretic deposition | rat bone marrow stromal cells/Sprague Dawley rat | [ |
|
| 21 | chitosan–graphene oxide–hydroxyapatite | ultrasonication | MG-63 cells | – | [ |
| 22 | chitosan–graphene oxide–polyvinylpyrrolidone | electrospinning | rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells/Sprague Dawley rat | – | [ |
| 23 | chitosan–graphene oxide–hydroxyapatite | layer-by-layer assembly technique | mouse mesenchymal stem cells | – | [ |
| 24 | polysaccharide 1-deoxylactit-1-yl chitosan–silver nanoparticles | coating | human adipose-derived stem cells/mini-pig | [ |
|
| 25 | chitosan–nanohydroxy- |
freeze-drying | osteoprogenitor cells | [ |
|
| 26 | chitosan–polyurethane–silver nanoparticle | electrospinning | NIH 3T3 cells |
|
[ |
| 27 | carboxylated chitosan–silver–hydroxyapatite | facile gas diffusion | MG-63 cells |
|
[ |
| 28 | chitosan–nanohydroxy- |
cross-linking and lyophilisation | MC3T3-E1 cells |
|
[ |
| 29 | chitosan–nanohydroxy- |
in situ hybridization | human osteoblasts |
|
[ |
| 30 | chitosan–multiwalled carbon nanotubes–hydroxyapatite | sonication and cross-linking | MC3T3-E1 cells | – | [ |
| 31 | titanium oxide–naringin–chitosan | dropping | osteoblasts | – | [ |
| 32 | chitosan–nanosilicon dioxide–chondroitin sulfate | cross-linking | MG-63 cells | – | [ |
| 33 | chitosan–nanosilicon dioxide-gelatin | cross-linking | MG-63 cells | – | [ |
| 34 | chitosan–octa(tetramethyl- |
Freeze-drying | MG-63 cells/ Saos-2 cells/3T3 cells | – | [ |
| 35 | chitosan–bioactive glass–silver nanoparticle | electrophoretic deposition | MG-63 cells |
|
[ |
| 36 | carboxymethyl chitosan–copper ion–alginate | cross-linking | MC3T3-E1 cells |
|
[ |
| 37 | chitosan–glycyl-ʟ-histidyl-ʟ- |
stirring | MC3T3-E1 cells | [ |
|
| 38 | chitosan–nanohydroxy- |
microwave-assisted coprecipitation | human fibroblast skin cells | [ |
|
| 39 | chitosan–titanium oxide–selenium | electrodeposition | osteoblasts |
|
[ |
| 40 | chitosan–silver–ion-loaded calcium phosphate | electrospinning | bone marrow stromal cells |
|
[ |
| 41 | chitosan–carboxymethyl cellulose–silver nanoparticle modified cellulose nanowhiskers | freeze-drying | MG-63 cells | [ |
|
| 42 | chitosan–silver–strontium– |
ultrasonication | human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells |
|
[ |
| 43 | chitosan–collagen–functional- |
lyophilisation/freeze drying | MG-63 cells | – | [ |
| 44 | chitosan–zein–polyurethane– |
electrospinning | MC3T3-E1 cells | [ |
|
| 45 | chitosan–titanium substrate–titanium oxide nanotubes–alginate | self-assembly | osteoblasts | [ |
|
| 46 | chitosan–melatonin–titanium oxide–gelatin | spin-assisted layer-by-layer | mesenchymal stem cells | – | [ |
| 47 | chitosan–alginate–hydroxy- |
freeze-drying | MG-63 cells | [ |
|
| 48 | chitosan–copper–bioactive nanoparticles–glycero- |
stirring | MC3T3-E1 cells/rat | – | [ |
| 49 | chitosan–titanium–silica– |
induction plasma spray coating | osteoblasts/rat |
|
[ |
| 50 | chitosan–nanohydroxyapatite– |
freeze-drying | rat progenitor cells | [ |
|
| 51 | chitosan–calcium phosphate–graphene oxide–silver nanoparticles | freeze-drying | bone marrow stromal cells/Sprague Dawley rat | [ |
|
| 52 | chitosan–silver-doped hydroxyapatite–iron oxide | ball milling | NIH-3T3 cells | [ |
|
| 53 | chitosan–bone morphogenic protein–silver–hydroxyapatite | coating | bone marrow stromal cells/Japanese big-ear white rabbit | [ |
|
| 54 | chitosan–silk cryogel–silver–strontium– |
freeze-drying | rat bone marrow stromal cells/Sprague Dawley rat | [ |
|
| 55 | chitosan–calcium silicate–gelatin–silver | coating | MG-63 cells | [ |
|
| 56 | chitosan–silver–magnesium– |
ultrasonication | human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells |
|
[ |
| 57 | chitosan–nanohydroxyapatite– |
freeze-drying, cross-linking and lyophilisation | mouse embryonic fibroblasts/rabbit | – | [ |
| 58 | chitosan–poly (3-hydroxybutyrate)–multiwalled carbon nanotubes–nano- |
coating | MG-63 cells | – | [ |
Figure 2The in vivo development of new bone in a rat distal femur model five weeks after implantation. Figure 2a depicts 3D pictures created by computed tomography (CT) scan radiographs which show good bone lodging in all implants. There are noticeable holes at the hydroxyapatite implant interface. Ag–Si hydroxyapatite implants, on the other hand, have a smooth contact between the host bone and the implant. Acemannan and chitosan coatings have been detected. Figure 2b depicts an optical microscopy image of Masson-Goldner staining which shows that acemannan and chitosan accelerates the formation of new bone. Figure 2 was reprinted with permission from [99], Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.
Figure 3(a) Cross-sectional histological photomicrographs from the chitosan/gelatin/ nanohydroxyapatite/nanocopper/zinc alloy nanocomposite scaffold stained with haematoxylin/eosin at seven and 14 days after surgery. (b) Haematoxylin/eosin-stained sections of scaffolds from in vivo biocompatibility assessments. Figure 3 was reproduced from [107], (© 2017 J. C. Forero et al., published by MDPI, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
Figure 4The ciprofloxacin release rate (%) from several composite films at pH 7.4. Figure 4 was reproduced from [68], (© 2018 S. Sharmeen et al., published by Elsevier, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.
Figure 5Adhesive molecules possibly involved in the initial cell adhesion events, analysed by immunostaining images. Signals positive for p-FAK, p-paxillin, and vinculin were strongly expressed in all the CNT–chitosan hybrid coatings but not in CNT0. Figure 5 was reprinted with permission from [59], Copyright 2014 American Chemical Society. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.
Figure 6(a) The viability of mesenchymal stem cells in the developed electrospun membranes Live (green) and dead (red) staining of cells after 24 h of incubation. (b) Chitosan-based nanofibers without the addition of graphene oxide or (c) containing 1 wt % of graphene oxide. SEM images show the geometry of MSCs on the surface of membranes containing (d) 0% of graphene oxide, (e) 0.5% graphene oxide, (f) 1, (g) 1.5, and (h) 2% of graphene oxide. Figure 6 was reprinted from [72], Materials Science and Engineering: C, vol. 70, by N. Mahmoudi; A. Simchi, “On the biological performance of graphene oxide-modified chitosan/polyvinyl pyrrolidone nanocomposite membranes: In vitro and in vivo effects of graphene oxide”, pages 121–131, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.
Figure 7Alkaline phosphatase activity in mice calvaria defects implanted with chitosan containing graphene oxide nanomaterials after 7 h, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 18 weeks post-implantation. Figure 7 was reproduced from [120], (© 2017 A. Hermenean et al., published by Springer Nature, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).