Article
Which bioactive glass is suitable for cartilage tissue engineering? A comparative in vitro study of three different bioglasses
Search Medline for
Authors
-
Clemens Gögele
- PMU, Institut für Anatomie und Zellbiologie, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Silvana Müller
- Faculty of Materials Science, TH Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Anoyen Anath
- Faculty of Materials Science, TH Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Sarah Moâti
- Faculty of Materials Science, TH Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Sven Wiltzsch
- Faculty of Materials Science, TH Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Kerstin Schäfer-Eckart
- Bone marrow Transplantation Unit, Medizinische Klinik 5, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Bernd Minnich
- Department of Environment and Biodiversity, PLUS, Sazburg, Germany
-
Armin Lenhart
- Faculty of Materials Science, TH Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Gundula Schulze-Tanzil
- Klinikum Nürnberg Nord, KNMS, Institut für Anatomie und Zellbiologie, Nürnberg, Germany
| Published: | October 21, 2024 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Objectives: The regeneration capacity of hyaline cartilage is limited. Cartilage defects have to be treated to reduce the risk of the onset of osteoarthritis. Bioactive glass (BG) scaffolds present a promising approach for cartilage tissue engineering. Until now, conventional BGs have been used mostly for bone regeneration, as they are able to form a hydroxyapatite (HA) layer and are therefore, less suited for cartilage reconstruction. The aim of this study is to compare two BGs based on a novel BG composition tailored for cartilage (CAR12N) and patented by us with conventional BG (BG1393) with a similar topology.
Methods: The highly porous scaffolds consisting of 100% BG (CAR12N, CAR12N with low Ca2+/Mg2+ and BG1393) were characterized and dynamically seeded with primary porcine articular chondrocytes (pACs) or primary human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) for up to 21 days. Subsequently, cell viability, metabolic activity, DNA and glycosaminoglycan (GAG) contents, cartilage-specific gene and protein expression were evaluated. Scanning electron microscopy allowed ultrastructural observations of cell-material interactions.
Results and conclusion: All scaffold variants were manufactured with a porosity over 80%. Bioactivity was confirmed by monitoring ion release and pH profiles. More than 60% of the total surface of all three BG variants was densely colonized by cells. The cell vitality rate was over 80%. Both cell types maintained their metabolic activity on all scaffold variants. The GAG content per cell was significantly higher in BG1393 scaffolds in comparison to those seeded with hMSCs. The gene expression of cartilage-specific collagen type II, VI, IX, XI, aggrecan, COMP, FOXO1 and SOX9 could be detected in all scaffold variants, irrespectively whether colonized with pACs or hMSCs. The osteogenic markers like collagen type I, X, RUNX2 and osteocalcin were higher expressed in colonized BG1393 scaffolds. Cartilage-specific ECM components were also detected at protein level in CAR12N and CaO scaffolds. In conclusion, all three BGs maintain the chondrogenic phenotype or chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal cells and thus, they show a high potential for cartilage regeneration.
