In vitro antibacterial activity and
biocompatibility of a porous scaffold containing magnesium

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2272

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The three-dimensional organic/inorganic scaffold materials using polymer/bioceramic composites can endow the necessary physical and chemical properties and enhance the mechanical properties of the materials. However, most bone substitution materials cannot prevent infection at the defect site. It has been found that the degradation of magnesium can produce local alkaline environment, so that magnesium has certain antibacterial activity.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the in vitro antibacterial activity and cytocompatibility of magnesium-containing scaffolds.

METHODS: Polylactic acid/β-tricalcium phosphate/magnesium porous scaffolds were prepared by low-temperature rapid prototyping technology. The PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups referred to two mixing mass ratios (β-tricalcium phosphate∶magnesium = 2∶1 and 1∶2), respectively. Two scaffolds of polylactic acid (P group) and polylactic acid/β-tricalcium phosphate (PT group) were also prepared by low-temperature rapid prototyping technology. The surface morphology, pore size, porosity and compression modulus of the scaffolds were measured. Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 35923) was seeded on the scaffolds of each group for 24 hours. The antibacterial activity of the scaffolds was observed through spread plate method and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Mouse preosteoblasts MC3T3-E1 were co-cultured with the scaffolds of each group. The cell attachment and proliferation were evaluated by cell counting kit-8 assay.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) A relatively uniform porous structure was found on the scaffold surfaces in each group. There were no significant differences in the pore size and porosity among groups (P > 0.05). (2) The compression modulus in the PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups were significantly higher than those in the P and PT groups (P < 0.05), and those in the PTM (1∶2) group were significantly higher than those in the PTM (2∶1) group (P < 0.05). (3) The results of the spread plate method showed that the bacterial colony formation unit in the PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups was significantly lower than that in the P and the PT groups (P < 0.05), and the difference among the other groups was insignificant (P > 0.05). (4) After 6 hours of culture, the number of attached cells in the PT, PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups was greater than that in the P group (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups (P > 0.05). (5) At 1 day of culture, the cell proliferation in the PT group was superior to that in the P group (P < 0.05). At 4 and 7 days, the cell proliferation in the PT, PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups was superior to that in the P group (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between PTM (2∶1) and PTM (1∶2) groups (P > 0.05). (6) These results indicate that the polylactic acid/β-tricalcium phosphate/magnesium scaffold not only possesses good antibacterial activity, but also exhibits excellent cytocompatibility and certain anti-compressive ability.

Key words: magnesium, rapid prototype, porous scaffold, antibacterial activity, biocompatibilitty, polylactic acid, β-tricalcium, bone substitute

CLC Number:

Ma Rui, Wang Jialin, Li Yongwei, Wang Wei. In vitro antibacterial activity and biocompatibility of a porous scaffold containing magnesium[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2020, 24(22): 3534-3539.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1] CROES M, VAN DER WAL BCH, VOGELY HC .Impact of bacterial infections on osteogenesis: evidence from in vivo studies.J Orthop Res. 2019;37:2067-2076.
[2] ROMANO CL, SCARPONI S, GALLAZZI E, et al. Antibacterial coating of implants in orthopaedics and trauma: a classification proposal in an evolving panorama.J Orthop Surg Res.2015;10:157.
[3] LU C, HANSEN E, SAPOZHNIKOVA A, et al. Effect of age on vascularization during fracture repair.J Orthop Res.2008;26:1384-1389.
[4] DIMITRIOU R, JONES E, MCGONAGLE D, et al. Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions. BMC Med.2011;9:66.
[5] LOU T, WANG X, SONG G, et al. Structure and properties of PLLA/β-TCP nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.J Mater Sci Mater Med.2015;26:5366.
[6] KIM HW, KNOWLES JC, KIM HE. Development of hydroxyapatite bone scaffold for controlled drug release via poly(epsilon-caprolactone) and hydroxyapatite hybrid coatings.J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004;70(2):240-249.
[7] FEELEY BT, GALLO RA, SHERMAN S, et al. Management of osteoarthritis of the knee in the active patient.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:406-416.
[8] WITTE F. The history of biodegradable magnesium implants: a review. Acta Biomater.2010;6:1680-1692.
[9] YAZDIMAMAGHANI M, RAZAVI M, VASHAEE D, et al. Porous magnesium-based scaffolds for tissue engineering.Mat Sci Eng C. 2017;71:1253-1266.
[10] STAIGER MP, PIETAK AM, HUADMAI J, et al. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review.Biomaterials.2006;27:1728-1734.
[11] BROWN A, ZAKY S, RAY H JR, et al. Porous magnesium/PLGA composite scaffolds for enhanced bone regeneration following tooth extraction.Acta Biomater.2015;11:543-553.
[12] WAKSMAN R, PAKALA R, KUCHULAKANTI PK, et al. Safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable magnesium alloy stents in porcine coronary arteries.Catheter Cardio Inte.2006;68:607-617;discussion 618-609.
[13] ROBINSON DA, GRIFFITH RW, SHECHTMAN D, et al. In vitro antibacterial properties of magnesium metal against Escherichia coli,Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.Acta Biomater.2010;6:1869-1877.
[14] REN L, LIN X, TAN L, et al. Effect of surface coating on antibacterial behavior of magnesium based metals.Mater Lett.2011;65:3509-3511.
[15] CIFUENTES SC, FRUTOS E, GONZÁLEZ-CARRASCO JL, et al. Novel PLLA/magnesium composite for orthopedic applications: A proof of concept.Mater Lett.2012;74:239-242.
[16] HETRICK EM. Schoenfisch MH Reducing implant-related infections: active release strategies. Chem Soc Rev.2006;35:780-789.
[17] LI Y, LIU G, ZHAI Z, et al. Antibacterial properties of magnesium in vitro and in an in vivo model of implant-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection.Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014; 58(12):7586-7591.
[18] WALKER J, SHADANBAZ S, WOODFIELD TB, et al. Magnesium biomaterials for orthopedic application: A review from abiological perspective.J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater.2014;102B:1316-1331.
[19] LI X, LIU X, WU S, et al. Design of magnesium alloys with controllable degradationfor biomedical implants: From bulk to surface.Acta Biomater. 2016;45:2-30.
[20] LOCK J, WYATT E, UPADHYAYULA S, et al. Degradation and antibacterial properties of magnesium alloys in artificial urine for potential resorbable ureteral stent applications.J Biomed Mater Res A.2014;102(3):781-792.
[21] RAHIM MI, EIFLER R, RAIS B, et al. Alkalization is responsible for antibacterial effects of corrodingmagnesium.J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:3526-3532.
[22] FOSS BL, GHIMIRE N, TANG R, et al.Bacteria and osteoblast adhesion to chitosan immobilized titanium surface: A race for the surface. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces.2015;134:370-376.
[23] ARNETT T. Regulation of bone cell function by acid-base balance.Proc Nutr Soc. 2003;62(2):511-520.