Can phosphatidylcholine increase the efficacy of bioactive glass graft when used as a carrier? an experimental study

Abstract

Aim: Bioactive glass (Bioglass) is a substance causing strong mechanical bondings at the interface of soft tissue-biomaterial-bone through a series of biochemical and biophysical reactions, commonly used to restore developing bone defects due to surgery. On the other hand, phosphatidylcholine is a lipid substance increasing antibiotics’ efficiency as a carrier. Since we met no study using the combination of Bioglass and phosphatidylcholine for bone defects, we aimed to investigate whether the bioglass-phosphatidylcholine combination would be more effective. Material and Method: Thirty Sprague-Dawley 3-6-months-old female rats with a mean weight of 400 gr were divided into five subgroups (six in each group). A 5-mm critical defect was created in the middle of the condyle throughout the burr’s diameter bilaterally. The phosphatidylcholine-bioglass graft was placed at one side, and Bioglass contralaterally to fill the defect. The rats were sacrificed at 24 hours, 72 hours, first, third, and sixth weeks postoperatively. The right and left rat femurs were removed and examined histopathologically. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding filling volume, newly formed and necrotic bone, fibrous tissue, residual graft material, integration, foreign body reaction, and defect organization, indicating that Bioglass served efficiently for filling the defect. In addition, phosphatidylcholine neither augmented nor impaired the healing process. Conclusion: These results indicated that Bioglass served efficiently for filling the defect, and the presence of phosphatidylcholine neither augmented nor impaired the healing process. However, further experimental studies are required until its clinical application is implemented.

Keywords

• Phosphatidylcholine-bioglass
• mechanical bondings
• foreign body reaction
• 5-mm critical defect
• residual graft material

References

1. Hench LL. Bioceramics: from concept to clinic. J Am Ceramic Soc 1991; 74: 1487–510.
2. Hench LL, Polak JM. Third-generation biomedical materials. Science 2002; 295: 1014-7.
3. El-Rashidy AA, Roether JA, Harhaus L, Kneser U, Boccaccini AR. Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: A review of in vivo studies in bone defect models. Acta biomaterialia 15; 62: 1-28.
4. Romano AM, Ascione T, Casillo P, et al. An evolution of shoulder periprosthetic infections management: MicroDTTect, Bioactive Glass and Tantalum Cones Employment. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2020; 9: 3683.
5. Hench LL, Splınter RJ, Allen WC, Greenlee TK. Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials. J Biomed Materials Res Part A 1971; 5: 117–141.
6. Hupa L. Melt-derived bioactive glasses. Bioactive glasses. Woodhead Publishing 2011; 3-28.
7. Jones JR. Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomaterialia 2013: 9; 4457–86.
8. Jennıngs JA, Carpenter DP, Troxel KS, et al. Novel antibiotic-loaded point-of-care ımplant coating ınhibits biofilm. Clin Orthopaed Related Res 2015: 473; 2270–82.

9. Jennıngs JA, Beenken KE, Skınner RA, et al. Antibiotic-loaded phosphatidylcholine inhibits staphylococcal bone infection. World J Orthopedics 2016: 7; 467–74.
10. Klein A, Baranowski A, Ritz U, et al. Effect of bone sialoprotein coating on progression of bone formation in a femoral defect model in rats. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2020; 46: 277-86.
11. Fricain JC, Schlaubitz S, Le Visage C, et al. A nano-hydroxyapatite–pullulan/dextran polysaccharide composite macroporous material for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2013; 34: 2947-59.
12. Uraz A, Gultekin SE, Senguven B, et al. Histologic and histomorphometric assessment of eggshell-derived bone graft substitutes on bone healing in rats. J Clin Exp Dent 2013;5:23-29.
13. Sahli-Vivicorsi S, Alavi Z, Bran W, et al. Mid-term outcomes of mastoid obliteration with biological hydroxyapatite versus bioglass: a radiological and clinical study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 10.1007: s00405-022-07262-5.
14. Towhidul İ, Nuzulia NA, Macri-Pellızzeri L, Nigar F, Sarı YW, Ifty A. Evolution of silicate bioglass particles as porous microspheres with a view towards orthobiologics. J Biomaterials Applicat 2022; 36: 1427–43.
15. Magri AMP, Fernandes KR, Kido HW, et al. Bioglass/PLGA associated to photobiomodulation: effects on the healing process in an experimental model of calvarial bone defect. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2019; 30: 105.
16. Zhang K, Bo C, Hao JI, et al. Bioglass promotes wound healing by inhibiting endothelial cell pyroptosis through regulation of the connexin 43/reactive oxygen species (ROS) signaling pathway. J Technical Methods Pathol 2022; 102: 90–101.
17. Shi P, Zhou W, Dong J, Li S, Lv P, Liu C. Scaffolds of bioactive glass (Bioglass®) combined with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein -9 (rhBMP-9) for tooth extraction site preservation. Heliyon 2022; 8: 08796.
18. Shi C, Hou X, Zhao D, Wang H, Guo R, Zhou Y. Preparation of the bioglass/chitosan-alginate composite scaffolds with high bioactivity and mechanical properties as bone graft materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2022; 126: 105062.
19. Zheng X, Xiaorong Z, Yingting W, et al. Hypoxia-mimicking 3D bioglass-nanoclay scaffolds promote endogenous bone regeneration. Bioactive Materials 2021; 6: 3485–95.
20. Camargo De F, Ferrari A, Baptısta AM, Natalino R, De Camargo OP. Bioactive glass in cavitary bone defects: a comparative experimental study in rabbits. Acta Ortopedica Brasileira 2015; 23: 202–7.
21. Karadjian M, Essers C, Tsitlakidis S, et al. Biological Properties of calcium phosphate bioactive glass composite bone substitutes: current experimental evidence. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20: 305.
22. Zhu CT, Yong Qing XU, Jian SHI, Jun LI, Jing DING. Liposome combined porous β-TCP scaffold: Preparation, characterization, and anti-biofilm activity. Drug Delivery 2010; 17: 391–8.
23. Han, B, Tang B, Nimni ME. Connective Tissue RESEARCH. Combined effects of phosphatidylcholine and demineralized bone matrix on bone induction. Taylor & Francis. 2003; 44: 160–6.
24. Karahalıloglu Z, Kılıcay E. In vitro evaluation of bone cements impregnated with selenium nanoparticles stabilized by phosphatidylcholine (PC) for application in bone. Journal of Biomaterials Applications 2020; 35: 385–404.