Cargando…

Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study

Hydroxyapatite (HAP) is the most common calcium phosphate ceramic that is used in biomedical applications, e.g., as an inorganic component of bone scaffolds. Nevertheless, fluorapatite (FAP) has gained great attention in the area of bone tissue engineering in recent times. The aim of this study was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kazimierczak, Paulina, Wessely-Szponder, Joanna, Palka, Krzysztof, Barylyak, Adriana, Zinchenko, Viktor, Przekora, Agata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10059826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36982648
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065576
_version_ 1785016967730561024
author Kazimierczak, Paulina
Wessely-Szponder, Joanna
Palka, Krzysztof
Barylyak, Adriana
Zinchenko, Viktor
Przekora, Agata
author_facet Kazimierczak, Paulina
Wessely-Szponder, Joanna
Palka, Krzysztof
Barylyak, Adriana
Zinchenko, Viktor
Przekora, Agata
author_sort Kazimierczak, Paulina
collection PubMed
description Hydroxyapatite (HAP) is the most common calcium phosphate ceramic that is used in biomedical applications, e.g., as an inorganic component of bone scaffolds. Nevertheless, fluorapatite (FAP) has gained great attention in the area of bone tissue engineering in recent times. The aim of this study was a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the biomedical potential of fabricated HAP- and FAP-based bone scaffolds, to assess which bioceramic is better for regenerative medicine applications. It was demonstrated that both biomaterials had a macroporous microstructure, with interconnected porosity, and were prone to slow and gradual degradation in a physiological environment and in acidified conditions mimicking the osteoclast-mediated bone resorption process. Surprisingly, FAP-based biomaterial revealed a significantly higher degree of biodegradation than biomaterial containing HAP, which indicated its higher bioabsorbability. Importantly, the biomaterials showed a similar level of biocompatibility and osteoconductivity regardless of the bioceramic type. Both scaffolds had the ability to induce apatite formation on their surfaces, proving their bioactive property, that is crucial for good implant osseointegration. In turn, performed biological experiments showed that tested bone scaffolds were non-toxic and their surfaces promoted cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation. Moreover, the biomaterials did not exert a stimulatory effect on immune cells, since they did not generate excessive amounts of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), indicating a low risk of inflammatory response after implantation. In conclusion, based on the obtained results, both FAP- and HAP-based scaffolds have an appropriate microstructure and high biocompatibility, being promising biomaterials for bone regeneration applications. However, FAP-based biomaterial has higher bioabsorbability than the HAP-based scaffold, which is a very important property from the clinical point of view, because it enables a progressive replacement of the bone scaffold with newly formed bone tissue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10059826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100598262023-03-30 Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study Kazimierczak, Paulina Wessely-Szponder, Joanna Palka, Krzysztof Barylyak, Adriana Zinchenko, Viktor Przekora, Agata Int J Mol Sci Article Hydroxyapatite (HAP) is the most common calcium phosphate ceramic that is used in biomedical applications, e.g., as an inorganic component of bone scaffolds. Nevertheless, fluorapatite (FAP) has gained great attention in the area of bone tissue engineering in recent times. The aim of this study was a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the biomedical potential of fabricated HAP- and FAP-based bone scaffolds, to assess which bioceramic is better for regenerative medicine applications. It was demonstrated that both biomaterials had a macroporous microstructure, with interconnected porosity, and were prone to slow and gradual degradation in a physiological environment and in acidified conditions mimicking the osteoclast-mediated bone resorption process. Surprisingly, FAP-based biomaterial revealed a significantly higher degree of biodegradation than biomaterial containing HAP, which indicated its higher bioabsorbability. Importantly, the biomaterials showed a similar level of biocompatibility and osteoconductivity regardless of the bioceramic type. Both scaffolds had the ability to induce apatite formation on their surfaces, proving their bioactive property, that is crucial for good implant osseointegration. In turn, performed biological experiments showed that tested bone scaffolds were non-toxic and their surfaces promoted cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation. Moreover, the biomaterials did not exert a stimulatory effect on immune cells, since they did not generate excessive amounts of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), indicating a low risk of inflammatory response after implantation. In conclusion, based on the obtained results, both FAP- and HAP-based scaffolds have an appropriate microstructure and high biocompatibility, being promising biomaterials for bone regeneration applications. However, FAP-based biomaterial has higher bioabsorbability than the HAP-based scaffold, which is a very important property from the clinical point of view, because it enables a progressive replacement of the bone scaffold with newly formed bone tissue. MDPI 2023-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10059826/ /pubmed/36982648 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065576 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kazimierczak, Paulina
Wessely-Szponder, Joanna
Palka, Krzysztof
Barylyak, Adriana
Zinchenko, Viktor
Przekora, Agata
Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study
title Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study
title_full Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study
title_fullStr Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study
title_short Hydroxyapatite or Fluorapatite—Which Bioceramic Is Better as a Base for the Production of Bone Scaffold?—A Comprehensive Comparative Study
title_sort hydroxyapatite or fluorapatite—which bioceramic is better as a base for the production of bone scaffold?—a comprehensive comparative study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10059826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36982648
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms24065576
work_keys_str_mv AT kazimierczakpaulina hydroxyapatiteorfluorapatitewhichbioceramicisbetterasabasefortheproductionofbonescaffoldacomprehensivecomparativestudy
AT wesselyszponderjoanna hydroxyapatiteorfluorapatitewhichbioceramicisbetterasabasefortheproductionofbonescaffoldacomprehensivecomparativestudy
AT palkakrzysztof hydroxyapatiteorfluorapatitewhichbioceramicisbetterasabasefortheproductionofbonescaffoldacomprehensivecomparativestudy
AT barylyakadriana hydroxyapatiteorfluorapatitewhichbioceramicisbetterasabasefortheproductionofbonescaffoldacomprehensivecomparativestudy
AT zinchenkoviktor hydroxyapatiteorfluorapatitewhichbioceramicisbetterasabasefortheproductionofbonescaffoldacomprehensivecomparativestudy
AT przekoraagata hydroxyapatiteorfluorapatitewhichbioceramicisbetterasabasefortheproductionofbonescaffoldacomprehensivecomparativestudy