Page 12 - Read Online

consideration of the spatial and temporal levels of material
organization in order to develop appropriate hierarchical
structures. These nanomaterials have shown superior
properties over their conventional counterparts owing
to their distinctive nanoscale features and novel physical
properties. [6-8] Currently, applications of nanomaterials
in osteodistraction include the use of nanofilms and
nanoparticles to protect against infection in surgical
implants, and the use of engineered surfaces to improve
bone healing and formation and to assist in osteogenesis via
the distribution of osteogenic factors. This review seeks to
demonstrate the potential of nanobiomaterials to augment
biological applications pertinent to osteodistraction.

NANOFEATURES INFLUENCE CELL Figure 1: Ilizarov’s external ring fixator for limb lengthening
BEHAVIOR
[12]
Further, Paley reported pin tract infections in 36% of
patients, and Karger et al. noted joint contractures in
[13]
The topography of nanomaterials (e.g. pores, ridges, 65% of patients when the limb was lengthened by
grooves, fibers, nodes, and combinations of these 24% (7 cm) of its initial length.
features) is known to significantly influence cell behavior. [9]
Advances in nanotechnology have stimulated
Furthermore, implant surface chemistry plays a critical investigations into cell-substrate interactions from the
role in deciding the performance and success of these microscale to the nanoscale. Using this technique, it
devices. The interaction of four proteins – fibronectin, is now possible to fabricate advanced materials with
vitronectin, laminin, and collagen – is known to enhance more favorable properties for orthopedic applications.
osteoblast function on nanomaterials compared to
conventional materials. Proteins and other biomolecules There have been quite a few reports in the literature
[10]
that dynamically adsorb to biomaterial surfaces upon investigating the usefulness of various nanomaterials for
implantation can trigger nonspecific inflammatory reducing the risk of implant-associated infections and
responses, which can limit integration of the device and accelerating the bone healing process.
influence in vivo performance.
NANOCOMPOSITES FOR BONE TISSUE
The wettability of a nanomaterial can significantly alter cell REGENERATION
behavior. The surface composition, surface treatment, surface
roughness, immobilization of various chemical agents to The introduction of polymer nanocomposites into bone
the surface of the implant or biomaterial, and the presence
of nanofeatures on the surface, alter surface wettability tissue engineering allows the complex architecture of
and affect cell behavior. Increased surface wettability, or native bone tissue to be mimicked, providing a novel and
[9]
hydrophilicity, has been associated with enhanced protein practical approach to the massive production of materials
[8]
adsorption, and consequently, cell adhesion on biomaterials. for bone tissue engineering. Synthetic or natural polymer
The ability to synthesize and process nanomaterials with matrices offer a wide range of mechanical properties and
tailored structures and topographies to direct subsequent exhibit different biodegradation features, whereas various
functions of specific cell lines provides potential for the inorganic nanoparticles provide bioactivity. Furthermore,
design of novel proactive biomaterials that could improve their integration makes it possible to fabricate materials
the efficacy of bone implants. that mimic the structural and morphological organization
of native bone. Although there is great potential to
OSTEODISTRACTION AND improve current biomaterials and develop advanced
nanocomposite scaffolds for bone regeneration, each of
NANOTECHNOLOGY these materials has specific drawbacks.

Although DO with an external fixator has become a Bioceramic/synthetic polymer nanocomposites
popular method of treating cases with substantial bone for bone regeneration
loss, it is not without complications [Figure 1]. One Nanocomposites based on bioceramics and biodegradable
of the major drawbacks of this method is that it is polymers (e.g. calcium phosphate, calcium sulfate,
time-consuming and the ring fixator must be maintained beta-tricalcium phosphate [β-TCP], hydroxyapatite [HA],
in situ until full consolidation of the bone. This is poly-lactic acid [PLA], poly-glycolic acid, and
inconvenient and even uncomfortable for the patient. poly-lactide-co-glycolide) have attracted much attention
[11]

6 Plast Aesthet Res || Vol 1 || Issue 1 || Jun 2014