Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:13:43.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanical Properties of Nanoparticle Hydroxyapatite/gelatin Constructs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Steven Fox ,
Inessa Stanishevskaya ,
Shafiul Chowdhury ,
Shane Catledge  and
Andrei Stanishevsky
Steven Fox
Affiliation:
astan@uab.edu, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Physics, 1300 University Boulevard, CH310, Birmingham, AL, 35294, United States
Inessa Stanishevskaya
Affiliation:
stanii@rpi.edu, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, United States
Shafiul Chowdhury
Affiliation:
shafiul@uab.edu, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, United States
Shane Catledge
Affiliation:
catledge@uab.edu, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, United States
Andrei Stanishevsky
Affiliation:
astan@uab.edu, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, United States
Get access

Abstract

Bone consists of up to 70% mostly nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA), and the rest is mostly collagen. One can suggest that synthetic nanoHA/collagen composites could potentially be the closest materials to resemble the bone microarchitecture and prepare resorbable bone substitutes and scaffolds. However, the data on the mechanical properties and property/structure relationships of HA/collagen composites are still scarce. It can be explained, in part, by the high cost of collagen and substantial amounts of materials needed for many tests. However, gelatin is cheap, has many properties similar to collagen, and can be used as a model material for the mechanical testing of HA-based composites. In this study, we report the results of an investigation of some mechanical properties of HA/gelatin composites with 0 to 80% HA nanoparticle (size 15-60 nm) loading by weight. The HA nanoparticle dispersions were mixed with gelatin in trifluoroethanol or in water in different ratios and placed in Teflon molds to produce the sheets with the thickness in the range of 0.4 – 1.0 mm. Nanoindentation technique was used to determine the Young's modulus and hardness. Bending tests were performed using dynamic mechanical analysis with the amplitudes in the 1 – 50 micron range at 1 Hz. The values of Young's modulus (1 – 20 GPa), hardness (70 – 500 MPa) and bending modulus (0.3 – 2.4 GPa) were obtained. The highest values of the Young's modulus and hardness of these composite materials were achieved for 40% – 60% HA content by weight, which was close to the values for similar HA/collagen composites. However, the maximum bending strength was observed for 20 – 35% HA content. We discuss further the observed trends of the mechanical properties and their dependence on other factors such as the test conditions, sample geometry, and HA particle size.

Keywords

compositebiomaterialelastic properties
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1063: Symposium OO – Solids at the Biological Interface , 2007 , 1063-OO05-04
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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

REFERENCES

1. Rho, J.Y., Kuhn-Spearing, L., and Zioupos, P., Med. Eng. Phys. 20, 92 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Tampieri, A., Celotti, G., Landi, E., Sandri, M., Roveri, N., and Falini, G., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A67, 618 (2003).Google Scholar
3. Kikuchi, M., Itoh, S., Ichinose, S., Shinomiya, K., Tanaka, J., Biomater. 22, 1705 (2001).Google Scholar
4. Kim, H.W., Song, J.H., and Kim, H.E., Adv. Funct. Mater. 15, 1988 (2005).Google Scholar
5. Ko, C., Oyen, M., Fallgatter, A.M., and Hu, W., in Mechanical Behavior of Biological and Biomimetic Materials, Materials Research Society Symp. Proc. (Warrendale, PA, 2006) 898E, 0898–L0808 (2005).Google Scholar
6. Pham, Q.P., Sharma, U., and Mikos, A.G., Tissue Eng. 12, 1197 (2006).Google Scholar
7. Catledge, A., Clem, W., Chowdhury, S.A., Stanishevsky, A., Koopman, M.C., Vohra, Y., Biomed. Mater. 2, 142 (2007).Google Scholar
8. Matthews, J.A., Wnek, G.E., Simpson, D.G., and Bowlin, G.L., Biomacromolecules 3, 232 (2002).Google Scholar
9. Huang, Z.M., Zhang, Y.Z., and Ramakrishna, S., Polymer 45, 5361 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Stanishevsky, A., Chowdhury, S., Chinoda, P., Thomas, V., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 2007 (in press).Google Scholar
11. Tai, K., Qi, H.J., Ortiz, C., J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 16, 947 (2005).Google Scholar