You are on page 1of 17

m  

  


  


 
@ 2  
  
@   
  
@    
     
  
     
        
@     2
@  
@ 1960s and 1970s

@ Goal ² ´ achieve physical properties-


replacement tissue immune response in
hostµ
@ 1980s ² 50 implantable devices ² 40
different materials
@ Common feature -´biological inertnessµ
@1st generation ´Bio-inertµ

@2nd generation ´bioactiveµ

Mechanism of bonding of bioactive glass


with living tissue
      !    

Ú    
 
 
 




  
  
  

   



 
 Ú
       ! 
("##$$$%%&
%&%#$# $'# 
  (  #)*+,  -))#&
 #  %
@ =n mid 1980·s and 1990·s
development of HA,
bioactive glasses and
glass ceramics, bone
fixation, middle-ear
prostheses, replacement
of vertebra
@ Another advancement:
Resorbable biomaterials
@ No difference between
implant site and host
tissue ("##$$$%
  %##    
 
@ iurvival analysis - skeletal
prostheses & artificial heart
valves ² Failure 10-25 years ²
revision surgery
@ Main disadvantage:
Living tissue ² changes with
physiological load and
biochemical stimuli but not
implanted biomaterials
("## 
%&%# # 
#     %
@itimulate
specific cellular
responses at the
molecular level
@ Two
alternative
routes of repair

1. Tissue
engineering

("##$$$%

&  %#  %.


 /$

2. =n situ tissue engineering
] Form of powders, solutions, or
doped
microparticles to stimulate local tissue repair.

] ionic dissolution products, or growth factors


(BMP)

] Activate the cells

] Cellsitimulate multiple generations of


growing cells to self-assemble into the
required tissues in situ
     

 Human osteoblasts ² ionic dissolution


products of bioactive glasses ² up
regulates seven families of genes
 Activated genes ² stimulates ²
differentiation and proliferation of
osteoblasts
Ö 0
  
  & 
1
Ö 0
 
&  & 
1
Ö 0 
   2


3 3
  1
     

] Ö 0$
4 
  &
 

  1

] Ö0 
& 

1

] Ö 0  &  


1

] Ö 0

& 
%
@ =mmobilizing specific proteins,
peptides, and other biomolecules
- material - mimic ECM
environment - multifunctional cell
adhesive surface

@ PLA/PGA copolymers were used


to incorporate nerve growth
factor (NGF)

@ Molecularly tailored polymers ²


regeneration of nerves

("##
 %&
%&#
 
#)))+#
%
@ Third-generation
biomaterials molecular
design of scaffolds for
tissue engineering and
for in situ tissue
regeneration and repair,
with minimally invasive
surgery.
@ Economic advantage
@ Patient specific
treatment
("##$$$%%# ##+5))
]"  
 
] ã. Yamanouchi, J. Wu, A.N. Lazar, K.C. Kent, C.C. Chu, and B. Liu. 2008.Biodegradable arginine-based
poly(ester-amide)s as non-viral gene delivery reagents. Biomaterials 29(22):3269-3277.

] N.W. Choi, M. Cabodi, B. Held, J.P. Gleghorn, L.J. Bonassar, and A.ã. itroock. 2007. Microfluidic
scaffolds for tissue engineering. Nature Materials 6: 908-915.

] i.Y. Wong, J. Pelet, and ã. Putnam. 2007. Polymer systems for gene delivery - Past, present, and future.
Progress in Polymer icience (invited) 2:799-837.