Comparative analysis of hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate, and carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate dental pulp replacement materials

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.1419

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are many kinds of dental pulp replacement materials, which can be divided into natural biological materials, artificial synthetic materials, and composite materials. Various types of materials can also be synthesized by chemical and biological methods, all of which have their own advantages and disadvantages.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cytotoxicity and biological compatibility of three kinds of alveolar bone repair materials including hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium phosphate, carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate, and pure hydroxyapatite.

METHODS: Mouse pre-osteoblasts and human osteoblasts were cultured together with the leaching liquor of three biomaterials respectively. Cell mitochondrial activity was detected by XTT assay (cells cultured separately were used as the control group), and cytotoxicity was detected by crystal violet assay (cells cultured in DMSO were used as the control group).Twenty Wistar rats purchased from Beijing Vital River Laboratory Animal Technology Co., Ltd were used to prepare the alveolar bone defect model of the right maxillary central incisor. Then the alveolar bone defect models were randomly divided into four groups. In the control group, no material was implanted into the bone defect region. In the other three groups, hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium phosphate, carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate, and pure hydroxyapatite were implanted into the bone defect region. At 7, 21 and 42 days after implantation, serum concentrations of receptor activator for nuclear factor-κB ligand and osteoprotegerin were measured. This study was approved by Animal Ethics Committee, Southwest Medical University, China (approval No. IACUC20170315-07).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the mitochondrial activity of the mouse preosteoblasts and human osteoblasts between three material groups and the control group (P > 0.05). The mitochondrial activity of mouse preosteoblasts and human osteoblasts was higher in the hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium phosphate and carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate groups than in the pure hydroxyapatite group (P < 0.05). The cytotoxicity of the mouse pre-osteoblasts and human osteoblasts in the three material groups was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Among three material groups, the leaching liquor of carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate had the lowest toxicity to the two kinds of cells. Serum concentration of receptor activator for nuclear factor-κB ligand at 7 days after implantation of carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate was significantly lower than that at 21 days after biomaterial implantation, and serum concentration of osteoprotegerin at 42 days after biomaterial implantation was significantly higher than that at 7 and 21 days (P < 0.001). These results suggest that carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate exhibits better biocompatibility than hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium phosphate and pure hydroxyapatite.

Key words: hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate, carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate, tissue engineering, Jaw defects, bone regeneration, biological scaffold material, biocompatibility

CLC Number:

Cheng Yang, Liu Min, Zhu Zhongyan, Gao Shasha. Comparative analysis of hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate, and carbonated hydroxyapatite alginate dental pulp replacement materials[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2019, 23(30): 4804-4810.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1]Marei MK,El Backly RM.Dental Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Based Translational Regenerative Dentistry: From Artificial to Biological Replacement.Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2018;6(49):1-14.

[2]Rignon-Bret C,Hadida A,Aidan A,et al.Efficacy of bone substitute material in preserving volume when placing a maxillary immediate complete denture: study protocol for the PANORAMIX randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:255-266.

[3]Sánchez-Siles M,Ballester-Ferrandis JF,Salazar-Sánchez N,et al.Long-term evaluation of quality of life and satisfaction between implant bar overdentures and conventional complete dentures: a 23 years retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.2018;20:208-214.

[4]Grabowski G,Cornett CA.Bone graft and bone graft substitutes in spine surgery:current concepts and controversies.J Am Acad Orthop Surg.2013;21:51-60.

[5]Ozdemir T,Higgins AM,Brown JL.Osteoinductive biomaterial geometries for bone regenerative engineering.Curr Pharm Des.2013;19:3446-3455.

[6]Calasans-Maia MD,Melo BR,Alves AT,et al.Cytocompatibility and biocompatibility of nanostructured carbonated hydroxyapatite spheres for bone repair.J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23(6): 599-608.

[7]Hashemi-Beni B,Khoroushi M,Foroughi MR,et al.Cytotoxicity assessment of polyhydroxybutyrate/chitosan/nano- bioglass nanofiber scaffolds by stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth stem cells from dental pulp of exfoliated deciduous tooth. Dent Res J (Isfahan).2018; 15(2):136-145.

[8]Anand S,Rejula F,Sam JVG,et al.Comparative Evaluation of Effect of Nano-hydroxyapatite and 8% Arginine Containing Toothpastes in Managing Dentin Hypersensitivity: Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.Acta Medica(Hradec Kralove). 2017;60(3):114-119.

[9]Bossù M,Saccucci M,Salucci A,et al.Enamel remineralization and repair results of Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite toothpaste on deciduous teeth: an effective option to fluoride toothpaste. J Nanobiotechnol.2019;17(1):17.

[10]刘琳,包广洁.牙髓牙本质组织工程生物支架材料的研究进展[J].中国组织工程研究,2013,17(8):1455-1460.

[11]Valiense H,Barreto M,Resende RF,et al.In vitro and in vivo evaluation of strontiumcontaining nanostructured carbonated hydroxyapatite/sodium alginate for sinus lift in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater.2015;104(2):274-282.

[12]Khoroushi M,Foroughi MR,Karbasi S,et al.Effect of Polyhydroxybutyrate/Chitosan/Bioglass nanofiber scaffold on proliferation and differentiation of stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth into odontoblast-like cells.Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl.2018;(89):128-139.

[13]Hashemibeni B,Dehghani L,Sadeghi F,et al.Bone repair with differentiated osteoblasts from adipose-derived stem cells in hydroxyapatite/Tricalcium phosphate in vivo.Int J Prev Med. 2016;7:62.

[14]Khoroushi M,Eshghi A,Naderibeni F.Pit and fissure sealant retention following air abrasion preparation with bioactive glass and aluminum oxide particles.J Dent Child (Chic).2016; 83:132-138.

[15]Ginebra MP,Espanol M,Montufar EB,et al.New processing approaches in calcium phosphate cements and their applications in regenerative medicine.Acta Biomater. 2010;6:2863-2873.

[16]Almasri M,Altalibi M.Efficacy of reconstruction of alveolar bone using an alloplastic hydroxyapatite tricalcium phosphate graft under biodegradable chambers.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 49:469-473.

[17]Brandt J,Henning S,Michler G,et al.Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite for bone repair: an animal study. J Mater Sci Mater Med.2010;21:283-294.

[18]Grossardt C,Ewald A,Grover LM,et al.Passive and active in vitro resorption of calcium and magnesium phosphate cements by osteoclastic cells.Tissue Eng Part A. 2010;16: 3687-3695.

[19]Sunouchi K,Tsuru K,Maruta M,et al.Fabrication of solid and hollow carbonate apatite microspheres as bone substitutes using calcite microspheres as a precursor.Dent Mater J. 2012;31:549-557.

[20]Lucaciu O,Sori??u O,Gheban D,et al.Dental follicle stem cells in bone regeneration on titanium implants.BMC Biotechnol. 2015;15:114.

[21]Gronthos S,Mankani M,Brahim J,et al.Postnatal human dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) in vitro and in vivo.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.2003;97(25):13625-13630.

[22]Yuan H,Fernandes H,Habibovic P,et al.Osteoinductive ceramics as a synthetic alternative to autologous bone grafting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(31):13614-13619.

[23]Miron RJ,Zhang Q,Sculean A,et al.Osteoinductive potential of 4 commonly employed bone grafts. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(8):2259-2265.

[24]Fairbairn P,Leventis M,Mangham C,et al.Alveolar Ridge Preservation Using a Novel Synthetic Grafting Material: A Case with Two-Year Follow-Up. Case Rep Dent. 2018; 2018: 6412806. doi: 10.1155/2018/6412806. eCollection 2018.

[25]Snowdon MR,Mohanty AK,Misra M.Miscibility and Performance Evaluation of Biocomposites Made from Polypropylene/Poly(lactic acid) /Poly(hydroxybutyrate- co-hydroxyvalerate) with a Sustainable Biocarbon Filler.ACS Omega.2017;2(10):6446-6454.

[26]Luklinska ZB,Schluckwerder H.In vivo response to HA-polyhydroxybutyrate/polyhydroxyvalerate composite.J Microsc.2003;211:121-129.

[27]Yang X,Yang F,Walboomers XF,et al.The performance of dental pulp stem cells on nanofibrous PCL/gelatin/nHA scaffolds.J Biomed Mater Res A.2010;93:247-257.

[28]Ramier J,Grande D,Bouderlique T,et al.From design of bio-based biocomposite lectrospun scaffolds to osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med.2014;25:1563-1575.

[29]Toloue EB,Karbasi S,Salehi H,et al.Potential of an electrospun composite scaffold of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate)- chitosan/alumina nanowires in bone tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl.2019;99: 1075-1091.

[30]Hasegawa S,Neo M,Tamura J,et al.In vivo evaluation of a porous hydroxyapatite/poly-DL-lactide composite for bone tissue engineering.J Biomed Mater Res A.2007;81:930-938.