In vitro bioactivity profile analysis and evaluation of usability of bioactive glass fibers as a structural part in load-bearing implants
Jalava, Niki (2020-12-08)
Julkaisu on tekijänoikeussäännösten alainen. Teosta voi lukea ja tulostaa henkilökohtaista käyttöä varten. Käyttö kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin on kielletty.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
Metallic and permanent bone implants expose trauma patients to recurring fractures and infections even after years of implantation. Metallic implants also predispose for stress shielding phenomenon and fibrous capsule formation driving the research to find more biocompatible solutions for implant materials and construction. Bioactive materials such as bioactive glasses have proven to be effective at repairing large bone defects, cure and prevent bone infections during the healing process, and they are completely biodegradable. Our goal is to create novel biodegradable composite implants which are comprised of polymer matrices reinforced with bioactive glass fibres. With such composite, it could be possible to create a load bearing and biodegradable implant that would also be osteoinductive and antimicrobial with customizable degradation time. For this, we have chosen 3 different types of bioactive glass compositions 1-06, 13-93, and 18-06 that represent fast, medium, and slow bioactivity profiles, respectively, according to the literature. We prepared the glasses, pulled them into fibers and performed a dissolution test and SEM analysis to assess the bioactivity profile of the glasses in fiber form. The secondary goal was to evaluate the usability of these fibers as structural components. The results from the dissolution test in simulated body fluid and SEM analysis confirmed that the 1-06 glass fibers were bioactive. The 13-93 and 18-06 fibers did not respond to SBF, start leeching ions or form a calcium phosphate layer. However, the 13-93 blocks, that were used as the positive control, did have a stronger response to the SBF than the 1-06. This suggests that the 1-06 fibers might represent a medium bioactivity profile instead of fast. These results might also mean that the 13-93 and 18-06 fibers were not immersed long enough for them to dissolute and they might still represent the suggested bioactivity profiles. Although, the glass composition of the fibers was altered during the fiber pulling process and the fibers had different composition than intended.