Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 1.736
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.135
Index Copernicus  – 168.52
MEiN – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2015, vol. 24, nr 3, May-June, p. 511–516

doi: 10.17219/acem/22599

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cytotoxicity Evaluation and Crystallochemical Analysis of a Novel and Commercially Available Bone Substitute Material

Witold Bojar1,A,C,D,F, Tomasz Ciach2,E, Martyna Kucharska2,B, Jan Maurin1,3,B,C,E, Beata M. Gruber4,B,C, Jolanta Krzysztoń-Russjan4,B,C, Irena Bubko4,B, Elżbieta L. Anuszewska4,C

1 Medical Devices, National Medicines Institute, Warszawa, Poland

2 Biomedical Engineering Laboratory, Faculty of Chemical and Process Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland

3 National Center for Nuclear Research, Warszawa, Poland

4 Biochemistry and Biopharmaceuticals Department, National Medicines Institute, Warszawa, Poland

Abstract

Background. Alloplastic biomaterials are an alternative for autologous transplants and xenografts in oral surgery and dental implantology. These non-immunogenic and resorbable materials are becoming the basis for complete and predictable guided bone regeneration in many cases. The chemical composition of a great majority of them is based on calcium phosphate salts. In vivo performance is often variable.
Objectives. The objective was to evaluate the biological and chemical properties of an experimental bone substitute material.
Material and Methods. The present research focuses on the cytotoxicity comparison and physiochemical characterization of two biomaterials: a novel chitosan/tricalcium phosphate/alginate composite (CH/TCP/Ag) and a commercially available synthetic bone graft made of HA (60%) and βTCP (40%) (HA/TCP). The materials were evaluated according to PN-EN ISO 10993 Biological evaluation of medical devices i.e. cytotoxicity on mouse fibroblasts (L929) and, in addition, tests on human osteoblasts (hFOB1.19) and human osteosarcoma (MG-63) were conducted. The crystallochemical analysis was performed using the X-ray powder diffraction method. The Bruker-AXS D8 Advance diffractometer (Karlsruhe, Germany) was used to collect diffractograms.
Results. The tested materials showed a close resemblance in chemical composition and a considerable differentiation in cytotoxic response.
Conclusion. The novel composite demonstrated a high degree of cytocompatibility, which is promising in future clinical trials.

Key words

bone substitute material, chitosan, guided bone regeneration, X-ray powder diffraction, cytotoxicity.

References (12)

  1. Araujo MG, Liljenberg B, Lindhe J: β-tricalcium phosphate in the early phase of socket healing: an experimental study in dog. Clin Oral Impl Res 2010, 21, 445–454.
  2. Horovitz RA, Mazor Z, Foitzik C, Prasad H, Rohrer M, Palti A: Β-Tricalcium Phosphate as Bone Substitute Material: Properties and Clinical Applications. Titanium 2009, 1, 1–11.
  3. Rumpel E, Wolf E, Kauscke E, Bienengraber V, Bayerlein T, Gedrange T, Proff P: The biodegradation of hydroxyapatite bone graft substitutes in vivo. Folia Morphol 2006, 65, 43–48.
  4. Lin Z, Ramay HR, Hauch KD, Xiaoc D, Zhanga M: Chitosan-alginate hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 1919-1928.
  5. Chazono M, Tanaka T, Komaki H, Fuji K: Bone formation and bioresorption after implantation injectable beta tricalcium phosphate granules-hyaluronate complex in rabbit bone defects. J Biomed Mater Res 2004, 70A, 542–549.
  6. Kim IY, Seo SJ, Moon HS, Yoo MK, Park IY, Kim BC, Cho CS: Chitosan and its derivatives for tissue engineering applications. Biotechnol Adv 2008, 26, 1–21.
  7. Bojar W: Formulation and preclinical evaluation of the new alloplastic injectable bone substitute material. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2012, 14, 39–44.
  8. Figuereido M, Henriques J, Martins G, Guerra F, Judas F, Figuereido H: Physiochemical Characterization of Biomaterials Commonly used in dentistry as bone substitutes – comparison with human bone. J Biomed Mater Res-B: Applied Biomaterials 2010, 92, 409–418.
  9. Hsu S, Whu SW, Tsai CL, Wu YH, Chen HW, Hsieh KH: Chitosan as Scaffold Materials: Effects of Molecular Weight and Degree of Deacetylation. J Polym Res 2004, 141-147.
  10. Khor E, Lim LY: Implantable applications of chitin and chitosan. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 2339–2349.
  11. Ravi Kumar MNV, Muzzarelli RAA: Chitosan chemistry and pharmaceutical perspectives. Chem Rev 2004, 104, 6017–6084.
  12. Bojar W, Marczewska J, Anuszewska E, Karwicka E: Cytotoxicity and Mutagenicity of N2 cement – root canal filling material. Adv Clin Exp Med 2009, 18, 615–621.