Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2018; 10(03): 265-270
DOI: 10.4103/JLP.JLP_167_17
Original Article

Evaluation of antibacterial properties of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass and fluorapatite/bioactive glass nanocomposite foams as a cellular scaffold of bone tissue

Seyedali Seyedmajidi
Dental Materials Research Center, Institute of Health, Babol University of Medical Silences, Babol, Iran
,
Ramazan Rajabnia
Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Institute of Health, Babol University of Medical Silences, Babol, Iran
,
Maryam Seyedmajidi
Dental Materials Research Center, Institute of Health, Babol University of Medical Silences, Babol, Iran
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Babol University of Medical Sciences.
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Infection is a serious problem for patients after implantation surgery, which is difficult to treat with antibiotic therapy. The present study was developed to evaluate and compare the antibacterial properties of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass (HA/BG) and fluorapatite/bioactive glass (FA/ BG) nanocomposite foams as a cellular scaffold for use in bone defects by two macrodilution and disk diffusion methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Streptococcus mutans were cultured in brain heart infusion broth medium with nanocomposite powder for 5 days, and their bioactivity levels were evaluated by daily culturing on solid agar medium plates. To carry out the disk diffusion test, a disc form of nanocomposite foams was used on agar medium with 48 h incubation.

Results: None of two nanocomposites even at their highest concentration (200 mg/mL) did not prevent the growth of two Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis microorganisms. However, HA/BG nanocomposite on the 3rd day at a concentration of 200 mg/mL and on 4th and 5th day at a concentration of 100 mg/mL and FA/BG nanocomposite on the 4th day at a concentration of 100 mg/mL and on the 5th day at a concentration of 50 mg/mL could be able to kill Streptococcus mutans microorganism. In the disc diffusion test, none of the nanocomposites could create a nongrowth zone. Both tested biomaterials showed increased antibacterial properties over time and concentration increase.

Conclusions: HA/BG and FA/BG nanocomposites, due to their biocompatibility and antimicrobial properties, are good choices for implantation instead of damaged bone tissue in tissue engineering.

Keywords

Antibacterial activity - cell scaffold - nanocomposite


Publication History

Received: 15 November 2017

Accepted: 31 January 2018

Article published online:
19 February 2020

© 2018.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1422-9.
  • 2 Eiff CV, Jansen B, Kohnen W, Becker K. Infections associated with medical devices. Drugs 2005;65:179-214.
  • 3 Mortazavi V, Nahrkhalaji MM, Fathi MH, Mousavi SB, Esfahani BN. Antibacterial effects of sol-gel-derived bioactive glass nanoparticle on aerobic bacteria. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;94:160-8.
  • 4 Polini A, Bai H, Tomsia AP. Dental applications of nanostructured bioactive glass and its composites. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2013;5:399-410.
  • 5 Nasiri-Tabrizi B, Fahami A. Synthesis and characterization of fluorapatite-zirconia composite nanopowders. Ceram Int 2013;39:4329-37.
  • 6 Habraken WJ, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Ceramic composites as matrices and scaffolds for drug delivery in tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2007;59:234-48.
  • 7 Couto DS, Hong Z, Mano JF. Development of bioactive and biodegradable chitosan-based injectable systems containing bioactive glass nanoparticles. Acta Biomater 2009;5:115-23.
  • 8 Doostmohammadi A, Fathi MH, Sadegh AB, Tavakolizadeh AH, Akbarian H.In vivo evaluation of bioactive nano bioceramics for bone regeneration and repair: An animal study. Iran J Orthop Surg 2012;39:67-76.
  • 9 Sebdani MM, Fathi MH. Preparation and characterization of hydroxyapatite-forsterite-bioactive glass nanocomposite coatings for biomedical applications. Ceram Int 2012;38:1325-30.
  • 10 Nasiri-Tabrizi B, Fahami A. Mechanochemical synthesis of fluorapatite-zinc oxide (FAp-ZnO) composite nanopowders. ISRN Ceram 2012;2012:9.
  • 11 Seyedmajidi M, Haghanifar S, Hajian-Tilaki K, Seyedmajidi S. Histopathological, histomorphometrical, and radiological evaluations of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass and fluorapatite/bioactive glass nanocomposite foams as cell scaffolds in rat tibia: An in vivo study. Biomed Mater 2018;13:025015.
  • 12 Crémet L, Corvec S, Bémer P, Bret L, Lebrun C, Lesimple B, et al. Orthopaedic-implant infections by Escherichia coli: Molecular and phenotypic analysis of the causative strains. J Infect 2012;64:169-75.
  • 13 Martínez-Pastor JC, Muñoz-Mahamud E, Vilchez F, García-Ramiro S, Bori G, Sierra J, et al. Outcome of acute prosthetic joint infections due to gram-negative bacilli treated with open debridement and retention of the prosthesis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009;53:4772-7.
  • 14 Leppäranta O, Vaahtio M, Peltola T, Zhang D, Hupa L, Hupa M, et al. Antibacterial effect of bioactive glasses on clinically important anaerobic bacteria in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008;19:547-51.
  • 15 Allan I, Newman H, Wilson M. Antibacterial activity of particulate bioglass against supra- and subgingival bacteria. Biomaterials 2001;22:1683-7.
  • 16 Forsback AP, Areva S, Salonen JI. Mineralization of dentin induced by treatment with bioactive glass S53P4 in vitro. Acta Odontol Scand 2004;62:14-20.
  • 17 Pratten J, Nazhat SN, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR.In vitro attachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis to surgical sutures with and without Ag-containing bioactive glass coating. J Biomater Appl 2004;19:47-57.
  • 18 Nirupama DN, Nainan MT, Ramaswamy R, Muralidharan S, Usha HH, Sharma R, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of four endodontic biomaterials against Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, and Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Biomater 2014;2014:383756.
  • 19 Al-Shwaimi E. Evaluation of antimicrobial effect of root canal sealers. Pak Oral Dent J 2011;31:432-5.
  • 20 Seyedmajidi S, Seyedmajidi S, Alaghehmand H, Hajian-Tilaki K, Haghanifar S, Zabihi E, et al. Synthesis and Characterization of Hydroxyapatite/Bioactive Glass Nanocomposite Foam and Fluorapatite/Bioactive Glass Nanocomposite Foam by Gel Casting Method as Cell Scaffold for Bone Tissue. Eurasian J Anal Chem 2018;13(3):em17.
  • 21 Munukka E, Leppäranta O, Korkeamäki M, Vaahtio M, Peltola T, Zhang D, et al. Bactericidal effects of bioactive glasses on clinically important aerobic bacteria. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008;19:27-32.
  • 22 Ragab HS, Ibrahim FA, Abdallah F, Al-Ghamdi AA, El-Tantawy F, Radwan N, et al. Synthesis and in vitro antibacterial properties of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. IOSR J Pharm Biol Sci 2014;9:77-85.
  • 23 Waltimo T, Brunner TJ, Vollenweider M, Stark WJ, Zehnder M. Antimicrobial effect of nanometric bioactive glass 45S5. J Dent Res 2007;86:754-7.
  • 24 Sadat-Shojai M, Khorasani MT, Dinpanah-Khoshdargi E, Jamshidi A. Synthesis methods for nanosized hydroxyapatite with diverse structures. Acta Biomater 2013;9:7591-621.
  • 25 Wu SC, Tsou HK, Hsu HC, Hsu SK, Liou SP, Ho WF. A hydrothermal synthesis of eggshell and fruit waste extract to produce nanosized hydroxyapatite. Ceram Int 2013;39:8183-8.
  • 26 Verma G, Barick KC, Manoj N, Sahu AK, Hassan PA. Rod-like micelle templated synthesis of porous hydroxyapatite. Ceram Int 2013;39:8995-9002.
  • 27 Neelakandeswari N, Sangami G, Dharmaraj N. Preparation and characterization of nanostructured hydroxyapatite using a biomaterial. Synth Reactivity Inorg Metal Organic Nano Metal Chem 2011;41:513-6.
  • 28 Li K, Tjong SC. Preparation and characterization of isotactic polypropylene reinforced with hydroxyapatite nanorods. J Macromol Sci B 2011;50:1983-95.
  • 29 Atwood RC, Jones JR, Lee PD, Hench LL. Analysis of pore interconnectivity in bioactive glass foams using X-ray microtomography. Scr Mater 2004;51:1029-33.
  • 30 Fathi MH, Zahrani EM. Mechanical alloying synthesis and bioactivity evaluation of nanocrystalline fluoridated hydroxyapatite. J Cryst Growth 2009;311:1392-403.
  • 31 Jones JR, Gentleman E, Polak J. Bioactive glass scaffolds for bone regeneration. Elements 2007;3:393-9.
  • 32 Ghomi H, Fathi MH, Edris H. Effect of the composition of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass nanocomposite foams on their bioactivity and mechanical properties. Mater Res Bull 2012;47:3523-32.
  • 33 Gubler M, Brunner TJ, Zehnder M, Waltimo T, Sener B, Stark WJ, et al. Do bioactive glasses convey a disinfecting mechanism beyond a mere increase in pH? Int Endod J 2008;41:670-8.
  • 34 Zehnder M, Waltimo T, Sener B, Söderling E. Dentin enhances the effectiveness of bioactive glass S53P4 against a strain of Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:530-5.
  • 35 Andersson OH, Rosenqvist J, Karlsson KH. Dissolution, leaching, and Al2O3 enrichment at the surface of bioactive glasses studied by solution analysis. J Biomed Mater Res 1993;27:941-8.