Different Species of Marine Sponges Diverge in Osteogenic Potential When Therapeutically Applied as Natural Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration in Rats.

A highly porous structure, and an inorganic (biosilica) and collagen-like organic content (spongin) makes marine sponges potential candidates to be used as natural scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. The aim of this study was to characterize (through SEM, FTIR, EDS, XRD, pH, mass degradation and porosity tests) scaffolds produced from two species of marine sponges, Dragmacidon reticulatum (DR) and Amphimedon viridis (AV), and to evaluate the osteogenic potential of these scaffolds by using a bone defect model in rats. First, it was shown that the same chemical composition and porosity (84 ± 5% for DR and 90 ± 2% for AV) occurs among scaffolds from the two species. Higher material degradation was observed in the scaffolds of the DR group, with a greater loss of organic matter after incubation. Later, scaffolds from both species were surgically introduced in rat tibial defects, and histopathological analysis after 15 days showed the presence of neo-formed bone and osteoid tissue within the bone defect in DR, always around the silica spicules. In turn, AV exhibited a fibrous capsule around the lesion (19.9 ± 17.1%), no formation of bone tissue and only a small amount of osteoid tissue. The results showed that scaffolds manufactured from Dragmacidon reticulatum presented a more suitable structure for stimulation of osteoid tissue formation when compared to Amphimedon viridis marine sponge species.

Porous poly (D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) acid/biosilicate® composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.

This study evaluated the effects of the Biosilicate® and poly (D,L-lactic-co-glycolic) acid composites on bone repair in a tibial bone defect model in rats by means of using histological evaluation (histopathological and morphometric analysis) and gene expression analysis. Eighty male Wistar rats (12 weeks old, weighing ±300 g) were randomly divided into two groups: Biosilicate® group (BG) and Biosilicate® /PLGA group (BG/PLGA). Each group was euthanized at 3, 7, 14, and 21 days after surgery (n = 10 animals per time point). The main findings showed that the incorporation of PLGA into BG had a significant effect on the morphological structure of the material, accelerating mass loss, decreasing the pH and increasing the calcium release. Furthermore, histologic analysis revealed that the BG/PLGA showed increased material degradation, accompanied by higher bone formation compared to BG, after 21 days of implantation. In addition, qRT-PCR analysis showed that BG/PLGA induced an upregulation of the osteogenic genes related to BMP4, Runx2, ALP, and OC. These results show that the present BG/PLGA composite may be used as a bone graft for inducing bone repair. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 63-71, 2017.

Histopathological, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluation of Biosilicate® glass-ceramic scaffolds.

This study evaluated the biocompatibility of Biosilicate® scaffolds by means of histopathological, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity analysis. The histopathologic analysis of the biomaterial was performed using 65 male rats, distributed into the groups: control and Biosilicate®, evaluated at 7, 15, 30, 45, and 60 days after implantation. The cytotoxicity analysis was performed by the methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) assay, with various concentrations of extracts from the biomaterial in culture of osteoblasts and fibroblasts after 24, 72, and 120 h. The genotoxicity analysis (comet assay) was performed in osteoblasts and fibroblasts after contact with the biomaterial during 24, 72, and 96 h. In the histopathology analysis, we observed a foreign body reaction, characterized by the presence of granulation tissue after 7 days of implantation of the biomaterial, and fibrosis connective tissue and multinucleated giant cells for longer periods. In the cytotoxicity analysis, extracts from the biomaterial did not inhibit the proliferation of osteoblasts and fibroblasts, and relatively low concentrations (12.5% and 25%) stimulated the proliferation of both cell types after 72 and 120 h. The analysis of genotoxicity showed that Biosilicate® did not induce DNA damage in both lineages tested in all periods. The results showed that the Biosilicate® scaffolds present in vivo and in vitro biocompatibility.