Strong Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds


Article Preview

Despite extensive efforts in the development of fabrication methods to prepare porous ceramic scaffolds for osseous tissue regeneration, all porous materials have a fundamental limitation- the inherent lack of strength associated with porosity. Shells (nacre), tooth and bone are frequently used as examples for how nature achieves strong and tough materials made out of weak components. So, the unresolved engineering dilemma is how to create a scaffold that is both porous and strong. The objective of this study was to mimic the architecture of natural materials in order to create a new generation of strong hydroxyapatite-based porous scaffolds. The porous inorganic scaffolds were fabricated by the controlled freezing of water-based hydroxyapatite (HA) slurries. The scaffolds obtained by this process have a lamellar architecture that exhibits similarities with the meso- and micro- structure of the inorganic component of nacre. Compressive strengths of 20 MPa were measured for lamellar scaffolds with densities of 32%, significantly better than for the HA with random porosity. In addition, the lamellar materials exhibit gradual fracture unlike conventional porous HA scaffolds. These biomimetic scaffolds could be the basis for a new generation of porous and composite biomaterials.



Edited by:





S. Deville et al., "Strong Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds", Advances in Science and Technology, Vol. 49, pp. 148-152, 2006

Online since:

October 2006




[1] Fantner GE, Hassenkam, T., Kindt, J. H., Weaver, J. C., Birkedal, H., Pechenik, L., Cutroni, J. A., Cidade, G. A. G., Stucky, G. D., Morse, D. E., Hansma, P. K. Nat Mater 4(2005), pp.612-616.


[2] Sellinger A, Weiss PM, Nguyen A, Lu YF, Assink RA, Gong WL, et al. Nature 394(6690) (1998), pp.256-260.


[3] Tang ZY, Kotov NA, Magonov S, Ozturk B. Nat Mater 2(6) (2003), p.413-U418.

[4] Worster MG, Wettlaufer JS. J Phys Chem B 101(32) (1997), pp.6132-6136.

[5] Deville S, Saiz E, Nalla RK, Tomsia A. Science 311(2006), pp.515-518.

[6] Jackson AP, Vincent, J.F. V, Turner, R.M. Proc R Soc London B 234(1988), pp.415-440.

[7] An YH. Mechanical properties of bone. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000. pp.41-63.

[8] Almirall A, Larrecq G, Delgado JA, Martinez S, Planell JA, Ginebra MP. Biomaterials 25(17) (2004), pp.3671-3680.


[9] del Real RP, Wolke JGC, Vallet-Regi M, Jansen JA. Biomaterials 23(17) (2002), pp.3673-3680.

[10] Lehuec JC, Schaeverbeke T, Clement D, Faber J, Lerebeller A. Biomaterials 16(2) (1995), pp.113-118.

[11] Ramay HR, Zhang MQ. Biomaterials 24(19) (2003), pp.3293-3302.

[12] Bignon A. Optimization of the porous structure of calcium phosphate implants for bone substitutes and in situ release of active principles. Lyon: National Institute of Applied Science, (2002).

[13] Sous M, Bareille R, Rouais F, Clement D, Amedee J, Dupuy B, et al. Biomaterials 19(23) (1998), pp.2147-2153.

[14] Liu DM. Ceram Int 23(2) (1997), pp.135-139.

[15] Milosevski M, Bossert J, Milosevski D, Gruevska N. Ceram Int 25(8) (1999), pp.693-696.


[16] Kawata M, Uchida H, Itatani K, Okada I, Koda S, Aizawa M. J Mater Sci-Mater M 15(7) (2004), pp.817-823.

[17] Song F, Soh AK, Bai YL. Biomaterials 24(20) (2003), pp.3623-3631.

Fetching data from Crossref.
This may take some time to load.