Evaluation of the Biocompatibility of New Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials for Craniofacial Bone Reconstruction

Abstract

This study aims to assess the biocompatibility of new advanced fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) to be used for custom-made cranial implants. Four new formulations of FRC were obtained using polymeric matrices (combinations of monomers bisphenol A glycidylmethacrylate [bis-GMA], urethane dimethacrylate [UDMA], triethylene glycol dimethacrylate [TEGDMA], hydroxyethyl methacrylate [HEMA]) and E-glass fibers (300 g/mp). Every FRC contains 65% E-glass and 35% polymeric matrix. Composition of polymeric matrices are: bis-GMA (21%), TEGDMA (14%) for FRC1; bis-GMA (21%), HEMA (14%) for FRC2; bis-GMA (3.5%), UDMA (21%), TEGDMA (10.5%) for FRC3, and bis-GMA (3.5%), UDMA (21%), HEMA (10.5%) for FRC4. Cytotoxicity test was performed on both human dental pulp stem cells and dermal fibroblasts. Viability was assessed by tetrazolium dye colorimetric assay. Subcutaneous implantation test was carried out on 40 male Wistar rats, randomly divided into 4 groups, according to the FRC tested. Each group received subcutaneous dorsal implants. After 30 days, intensity of the inflammatory reaction, tissue repair status, and presence of the capsule were the main criteria assessed. Both cell populations showed no signs of cytotoxicity following the FRC exposures. In terms of cytotoxicity, the best results were obtained by FRC3 followed by FRC2, FRC4, and FRC1. FRC3 showed also the mildest inflammatory reaction and this correlated both with the noncytotoxic behavior and the presence of a well-organized capsule. The composite biomaterials developed may constitute an optimized alternative of the similar materials used for the reconstruction of craniofacial bone defects. According to authors' studies, the authors conclude that FRC3 is the best formulation regarding the biological behavior.

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites: Manufacturing, Properties, and Applications

“…Remarkable technological advances have been seen in the design of lower-limb sports prostheses [236]. For the reconstruction of craniofacial bone defects, new fiber-reinforced composite biomaterial replaces the material used for custom-made cranial implants [237]. A variety of aramid fibers display their biomedical applications in protein immobilization, for medical implants and devices, in modern orthopedic medicine, and as antimicrobial material.…”

Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws with Full-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: An Approach with Short and Ultrashort Implants and Metal-Free Materials

“…Finally, there is a biocompatibility issue. The FRC material was also found as an optimized alternative to similar materials used for the reconstruction of craniofacial bone defects [20]. Compared to metal alloys, it prevents corrosion that represents a concrete risk; for example, cobalt and nickel can be released into the oral cavity in other types of prosthesis [6].…”

Travel beyond Clinical Uses of Fiber Reinforced Composites (FRCs) in Dentistry: A Review of Past Employments, Present Applications, and Future Perspectives

“…Moreover, FRCs materials can be used in maxillofacial discipline for orbital floor implants [ 75 ], cranioplasty implants [ 25 ], and craniofacial bone reconstruction [ 76 ].…”

“…FRCs have been suggested for tissue engineering for orthopaedic scaffolds [ 80 ]. As biocompatibility results are promising, FRC biomaterials developed may constitute an optimized alternative to the other materials used for the reconstruction of craniofacial bone defects [ 76 ].…”