Biomimetic Natural Biomaterial Nanocomposite Scaffolds: A Rising Prospect for Bone Replacement

Abstract

Biomimetic natural biomaterial (BNBM) nanocomposite scaffolds for bone replacement can reduce the rate of implant failure and the associated risks of post-surgical complications for patients. Traditional bone implants, like allografts, and autografts, have limitations, such as donor site morbidity and potential patient inflammation. Over two million bone transplant procedures are performed yearly, and success varies depending on the material used. This emphasizes the importance of developing new biomaterials for bone replacement. Innovative BNBM nanocomposites for modern bone fabrication can promote the colonization of the desired cellular components and provide the necessary mechanical properties. Recent studies have highlighted the advantages of BNBM nanocomposites for bone replacement; therefore, this review focuses on the application of cellulose, chitosan, alginates, collagen, hyaluronic acid, and synthetic polymers enhanced with nanoparticles for the fabrication of nanocomposite scaffolds used in bone regeneration and replacement. This work outlines the most up-to-date overview and perspectives of selected promising BNBM nanocomposites for bone replacement that could be used for scaffold fabrication and replace other biomorphic materials such as metallics, ceramics, and synthetic polymers in the future. In summary, the concluding remarks highlight the advantages and disadvantages of BNBM nanocomposites, prospects, and future directions for bone tissue regeneration and replacement.

Keywords: BNBM nanocomposites; biomaterials; biopolymers; bone replacement; nanoparticles.

Figure 1

Schematic summary of bone replacement materials. Presented bone replacement materials are classified into two main groups, including natural and artificial bone grafts, which are further sub-classified.

Figure 2

Schematic of the development of BNBM nanocomposites for bone replacement.

Figure 3

In vitro results of reviewed alginate- and chitosan-based nanocomposites for bone regeneration. (A) Nanocomposite consisting of alginate/HAp/BGs (1–3). Nanocomposite morphology obtained using eSEM: (1) Ctrl-sc; (2) BG6-sc; (3) BG12-sc; (4) MTT assay of MG63 viability on Ctrl-sc (blue) and BG6-sc (red) scaffolds. (5–10) Top views obtained using stereoscope: (5,8) Ctrl-sc; (6,9) BG6-sc; (7,10) BG12-sc; black spots are cells which metabolized the MTT dye; BG6-sc represents a higher level of cell colonization [36]. (B) Compressive strength improvement and cell viability of nanocomposite consisting of alginate/Zn-Sr-BGNPs; Scale bar: 50 µm (operate at 15.0 kV, 500×) [33]. (C) Nanocomposite consisting of chitosan (CS), β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), and human bone powder: (1) TEM images of CS-β-TCP; (2) schematic of the development of CS-β-TCP from chitosan, human bone powder, and β-TCP; (3) cell viability of developed nanocomposite. Scale bar—200 µm [37].

Figure 4

Nanocomposite consisting of HAp and collagen designed using a cheminformatics approach. (a) Synthesis of HAp/collagen (Col) nanocomposite; (b) identification using SEM-EDX analysis of composites (Col 0 and Col 1); (c) antibacterial and antifungal effects of samples on several bacterial and fungal strains: (1) Escherichia coli; (2) Pseudomonas aeruginosa; (3) Staphylococcus aureus; (4) Listeria monocytogenes; (5) Rhodotorula sp.; (6) Penicillium sp.; (7) Aspergilus niger (d) ADVina-predicted interaction between Col 1 and the Hap molecule for the Col 1, Col 2, and Col 3 complexes. The protein molecule is presented in both cartoon and ball-and-stick representations, with colors corresponding to its atomic composition. For clarity purposes, all hydrogen atoms are omitted from the visualization [59].