Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:41:11.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Novel Biodegradable Poly(Lactic-Co-Glycolic Acid) Foam for Bone Regeneration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Robert C. Thomson ,
Michael J. Yaszemski ,
John M. Powers  and
Antonios G. Mikos
Robert C. Thomson
Affiliation:
Institute of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX
Michael J. Yaszemski
Affiliation:
Departement of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX
John M. Powers
Affiliation:
Department of Oral Biomaterials, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX
Antonios G. Mikos
Affiliation:
Institute of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX
Get access

Abstract

We present a novel method for manufacturing three-dimensional, biodegradable poly(DL-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) foam scaffolds for use in bone regeneration. The technique involves the formation of a composite material consisting of gelatin microspheres surrounded by a PLGA matrix. The gelatin microspheres are leached out leaving an open-cell foam with a pore size and morphology defined by the gelatin microspheres. The foam porosity can be controlled by altering the volume fraction of gelatin used to make the composite material. PLGA 50:50 was used as a model degradable polymer to establish the effect of porosity, pore size, and degradation on foam mechanical properties. The compressive strengths and moduli of PLGA 50:50 foams were found to decrease with increasing porosity but were largely unaffected by pore size. Foams with compressive strengths up to 2.5 MPa were manufactured. From in vitro degradation studies we established that for PLGA 50:50 foams the mechanical properties declined in parallel with the decrease in molecular weight. Below a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 the foam had very little mechanical strength (0.02 MPa). These results indicate that PLGA 50:50 would not be suitable as a scaffold material for bone regeneration. However, the dependence of mechanical properties on porosity, pore size, and degree of degradation which we have determined will aid us in designing a PLGA foam (with a comonomer ratio other than 50:50) suitable for bone regeneration.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 331: Symposium T – Biomaterials for Drug and Cell Delivery , 1993 , 33
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wijn, J.R. de and Mullem, P.J. van, in Biocompatibility of Clinical Implant Materials, edited by Williams, D.F. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1981), p. 99.Google Scholar
2. Schmitz, J.P. and Hollinger, J.O., Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res., 237, 245 (1988).Google Scholar
3. Burr, D.B., Mori, S., Boyd, R.D., Sun, T.C., Blaha, J.D., Lane, L., and Parr, J., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 27, 645 (1993).Google Scholar
4. Jasty, M., Bragdon, C.R., Haire, T., Mulroy, J. R. D., and Harris, W.H., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 27, 639 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Toriumi, D.M. and Robertson, K., Facial Plast. Surg., 9, 29 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Habal, M.B., J. Craniofacial Surg., 2, 27 (1991).Google Scholar
7. Ripamonti, U., J. Craniofacial Surg., 3, 149 (1992).Google Scholar
8. Amler, M.H. and LeGeros, R.Z., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 24, 1079 (1990).Google Scholar
9. Uyama, S., Kaufmann, P.M., Tadeka, T., and Vacanti, J.P., Transplantation, 55, 932 (1993).Google Scholar
10. Freed, L.E., Marquis, J.C., Nohria, A., Emmanual, J., Mikos, A.G., and Langer, R., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 27, 11 (1993).Google Scholar
11. Yannas, I.V., in Collagen II, edited by Nimni, M.E. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1988), p. 87.Google Scholar
12. Goldstein, S.A., J. Biomech., 20, 1055 (1987).Google Scholar
13. Vert, M., Christel, P., Chabot, F., and Leray, J., in Macromolecular Biomaterials, edited by Hastings, G.W. and Ducheyne, P. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1984), p. 119.Google Scholar
14. Thomson, R.C., Yaszemski, M.J., Powers, J.M., and Mikos, A.G., in preparation.Google Scholar
15. Nilsson, K. and Mosbach, K., FEBS Lett., 118, 145 (1980).Google Scholar
16. Mikos, A.G., Thorsen, A.J., Czerwonka, L.A., Bao, Y., Winslow, D.N., Vacanti, J.P., and Langer, R., Polymer, (in press).Google Scholar
17. Suganuma, J. and Alexander, H., Journal of Applied Biomaterials, 4, 13 (1993).Google Scholar
18. Thomson, R.C., Ishaug, S.L., Mikos, A.G., and Langer, R., in Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, edited by Meyers, R.A. (VCH Publishers, New York, 1993), (in press)Google Scholar
19. Engelberg, I. and Kohn, J., Biomaterials, 12, 292 (1990).Google Scholar