Synthesis and Properties of Ag-doped Titanium-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass Nanostructured Scaffolds

doi:10.1007/s40195-015-0221-0

Abstract

Abstract:

A new kind of biomedical Ti-45S5 Bioglass-Ag nanocomposites and their scaffolds with antibacterial function was developed by the introduction of 1.5 wt% Ag into the Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass matrix. The microstructure, hardness and corrosion resistance in Ringer solution of the Ag-doped Ti-45S5 glass were investigated. The Vickers hardness of the bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposites reached 480 HV_0.3. Contact angles of water on the microcrystalline Ti and nanostructured Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag sample were determined and show visible decrease from 55.2° to 49.6°. In vitro tests culture of normal human osteoblast cells showed very good cells proliferation, colonization and multilayering. In vitro bacterial adhesion study indicated a significantly reduced number of bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus) on the bulk nanostructured Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag plate surface in comparison with that on microcrystalline Ti plate surface. Development of porous Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag scaffolds aims in enhancing bone ingrowth and prosthesis fixation.

Key words: Biomaterials, Nanocrystalline materials, Titanium, 45S5 Bioglass

K. Jurczyk, A. Miklaszewski, K. Niespodziana, M. Kubicka, M. U. Jurczyk, M. Jurczyk. Synthesis and Properties of Ag-doped Titanium-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass Nanostructured Scaffolds[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2015, 28(4): 467-476.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig. 1 XRD spectra of Ti, 45S5 Bioglass (10 wt%) and silver (1.5 wt%) powders mechanically alloyed for different times: a Ti—0 h, b 45S5 Bioglass—0 h, c Ag—0 h, d 15 h of MA, e bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite after annealing at 1,150 °C for 2 h, f ammonium hydrogen carbonate (NH4HCO3)—the space-holder material, g Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite scaffold with porosity of 67% after sintering in a vacuum of 1.33 × 10-2 Pa in two steps: at 175 °C for 2 h and at 1,150 °C for 10 h

Fig. 2 EDS surface spectrum of the Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite with distribution of Ag particles

Fig. 3 Scanning electron micrographs of the Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite scaffolds with porosities of 48% (a), 67% (b), 72% (c); the surface roughness of the bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite is shown in (d)

Table 1 Structural parameters, microhardness, mean values of corrosion current densities and corrosion potentials of studied bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite (B) and Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite scaffold with 67% porosity (C) in comparison with microcrystalline titanium (A)

Sample	a (10^-1 nm)	c (10^-1 nm)	V (10^-3 nm³)	HV_0.3	i _c (A cm^-2)	E _c versus SCE (V)
A	2.948	4.784	36.00	180	2.27×10^-6	-0.36
B	2.968	4.761	36.32	480	3.50×10^-7	-0.43
C	2.970	4.759	36.35	-	7.15×10^-6	-0.44

Fig. 4 Potentiodynamic polarization curves of: microcrystalline titanium a, Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite scaffold with 67% porosity b, bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite c in Ringer’s solution at 37 °C

Fig. 5 Optical profiler 3D topography (229.1 × 301.1 μm scan size) (a, c) and X-profiles (b, d) of polished bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite (a, b), the Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag scaffold with a 67% porosity (c, d)

Table 2 Roughness and topography surface parameters for the studied samples on different processing routes; parameters taken from surface area of 0.069 mm2

Sample	R _a (µm)	R _t (µm)	R _z (µm)	S _sc (µm^-1)	S _dq (degrees)	S _dr (%)
A^a,b	0.21	6.35	4.43	2.71	37.12	23.86
B^b	0.92	9.05	7.45	0.84	27.95	12.91
C	73.01	433.03	421.57	11.07	80.42	11,223.21

Fig. 6 Contact angles of destilled water on the microcrystalline Ti (a), bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite (b)

Fig. 7 Scanning electron micrographs of osteoblasts cultured on bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite (a, b) and Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag scaffolds with 67% porosity (c, d) after the first (a, c), the fifth day (b, d)

Fig. 8 a Statistical results of viable adherent bacteria on microcrystalline titanium A, bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass nanocomposite B, and bulk Ti-10 wt% 45S5 Bioglass-1.5 wt% Ag nanocomposite C, (b) representative macroscopic photos of viable adherent bacteria on difference experimental material surfaces

References 34

[1]	A. Arys, C. Philippart, N. Dourov, Y. He, Q.T. Le, J.J. Pireaux, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 43, 300(1998)
[2]	M. Geetha, A.K. Singh, R. Asokamani, A.K. Gogia,Prog. Mater. Sci. 54, 397(2009)
[3]	M. Niinomi,Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 4, 445(2003)
[4]	K. Niespodziana, K. Jurczyk, J. Jakubowicz, M. Jurczyk,Mater. Chem. Phys. 123, 160(2010)
[5]	W.P. Cao, L. Hench,Ceram. Int. 22, 493(1996)
[6]	S.M. Best, A.E. Porter, E.S. Thian, J. Huang, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 28, 1319(2008)
[7]	S.A. Papargyri, D. Tsipas, G. Stergioudis, J. Chlopek,Eng. Biomater. 46, 27(2005)
[8]	K. Jurczyk, K. Niespodziana, M.U. Jurczyk, J. Jakubowicz, M. Jurczyk,Mater. Chem. Phys. 131, 540(2011)
[9]	M.U. Jurczyk, K. Jurczyk, A. Miklaszewski, M. Jurczyk,Mater. Des. 32, 4882(2011)
[10]	M. Tulinski, M. Jurczyk, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 12, 1(2012)
[11]	V.C. Costa, H.S. Costa, W.L. Vasconcelos, M.M. Pereira, R.L. Oréfice, H.S. Mansur,Mater. Res. 10, 21(2007)
[12]	A. Arifin, A.B. Sulong, N. Muhamad, J. Syarif, M.I. Ramli,Mater. Des. 55, 165(2014)
[13]	F. Tang, H. Fudouzi, T. Uchikoshi, Y. Sakka, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 24, 341(2004)
[14]	J. Jakubowicz, K. Jurczyk, K. Niespodziana, M. Jurczyk,Electrochem. Commun. 11, 461(2009)
[15]	H. Liu, T.J. Webster, Biomaterials 28, 354 (2007)
[16]	H. Agheli, J. Malmström, P. Hanarp, D.S. Sutherland, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 26, 911 (2006)
[17]	M. Rai, A. Yadav, A. Gade,Biotechnol. Adv. 27, 76(2009)
[18]	H. Wen, Y. Lin, S. Jian, S. Tseng, M. Weng, Y. Liu, J. Phys. 61, 445(2007)
[19]	C.S. Ciobanu, F. Massuyeau, L.V. Constantin, D. Predoi,Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6, 613(2011)
[20]	S. Ringer, J. Physiol. 3, 380 (1882)
[21]	M. Cehreli, S. Sahin, K. Akca, J. Dent. 32, 123(2004)
[22]	T.B. Webster, J.U. Ejiofor, Biomaterials 25, 4731 (2004)
[23]	R.Z. Valiev, I.P. Semenova, V.V. Latysh, H. Rack, T.C. Lowe, J. Petruzelka, L. Dluhos, D. Hrusak, J. Sochova,Adv. Eng. Mater. 10, B15(2008)
[24]	Y.T. Sul, B.S. Kang, C. Johansson, H.S. Um, C.J. Park, T. Albrektsson, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 89, 942 (2009)
[25]	M.U. Jurczyk, K. Jurczyk, K. Niespodziana, A. Miklaszewski, M. Jurczyk,Mater. Charact. 77, 99(2013)
[26]	R. Burgers, S. Hahnel, T.E. Reichert, M. Rosentritt, M. Behr, T. Gerlach, G. Handel, M. Gosau,Acta Biomater. 6, 2307(2010)
[27]	T.J. Webster, L.S. Schadler, R.W. Siegel, R. Bizios,Tissue Eng. 7, 291(2001)
[28]	Y. Shen, G. Wang, X. Huang, Q. Zhang, J. Wu, C. Tang, Q. Yu, X. Liu, J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 313 (2012)
[29]	K. Anselme, M. Bigerelle, Biomaterials 8, 1187 (2006)
[30]	C.J. Kirkpatrick, C. Mittermayer, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 1, 9(1990)
[31]	Y. Estrin, C. Kasper, S. Diederichs, R. Lapovok, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 90, 1239 (2009)
[32]	R.Z. Valiev, M.J. Zehetbauer, Y. Estrin, H.W. Höppel, Y. Ivanisenko, H. Hahn, G. Wilde, H.J. Roven, X. Sauvage, T.G. Langdon,Adv. Eng. Mater. 9, 527(2009)
[33]	R. Kumar, H. Münstedt, Biomaterials 26, 2081 (2005)
[34]	M. Kaczmarek, M.U. Jurczyk, B. Rubis, A. Banaszak, A. Kolecka, A. Paszel, K. Jurczyk, M. Murias, J. Sikora, M. Jurczyk, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 102, 1316 (2014)