Review of Biomedical Polymer Nanocomposites Progress

Volume: 10 | Issue: 01 | Year 2024 | Subscription
International Journal of Composite and Constituent Materials
Received Date: 07/17/2024
Acceptance Date: 09/05/2024
Published On: 2024-10-03
First Page:
Last Page:

Journal Menu

By: Haydar U. Zaman

Assistant Professor, Department of Physics, National University of Bangladesh and Institute of Radiation and Polymer Technology, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract

Polymer nanocomposites (PNCs) have a reputation for being an effective way to give materials exceptional qualities that are impossible to achieve with the individual components alone. When creating composites with nanofiller, it is advantageous to use the interfaces between the two phases of nanoscale compounds with large specific surface areas. The interfacial interactions between the two phases, however, present the nanocomposites with their principal difficult feature. Due to their intriguing potential for a variety of electric, magnetic, optical, and biological applications, polymer nanocomposites have recently gained a great deal of research interest. Polymeric nanocomposites have several advantages over traditional materials, including light weightiness, flexibility, ease of processing, and low cost of the finished product. The importance of medical technology, which has raised the standards for biomedical materials, has led to the rise of biomedical applications as an excellent research field among the domains. New materials with qualities are in high demand. The development of biomedical applications, such as diagnostic and therapeutic devices, tissue regeneration, drug delivery matrices, and various biotechnologies that are inspired by biology but have only a loose connection to biomedicine, have the potential to greatly benefit from the use of biomedical polymer-silicate nanocomposites. To regulate the structure-property relationships of materials that must function within the chemical, physical, and biological restrictions required by an application, a fundamental understanding of polymer-nanoparticle interactions is critically necessary. To design and develop polymer-silicate nanocomposites (including clay-based silicate nanoparticles and bioactive glass nanoparticles) for a variety of biomedical applications, the most recent published strategies have been compiled in this review. New developments in biotechnological and biomedical nanocomposites are emphasized, and prospective new application areas are investigated.


Keywords: Nanocomposites, polymer, silicates, clay, biopolymer, mechanical properties, biomedical

Loading

Citation:

How to cite this article: Haydar U. Zaman, Review of Biomedical Polymer Nanocomposites Progress. International Journal of Composite and Constituent Materials. 2024; 10(01): -p.

How to cite this URL: Haydar U. Zaman, Review of Biomedical Polymer Nanocomposites Progress. International Journal of Composite and Constituent Materials. 2024; 10(01): -p. Available from:https://journalspub.com/publication/ijccm-v10i01-10890/
Full Text

Refrences:

  1. Sinha Ray S. Polylactide-based bionanocomposites: A promising class of hybrid materials. Acc Chem Res. 2012;45:1710–1720.
  2. Liff SM, Kumar N, et al. High-performance elastomeric nanocomposites via solvent-exchange processing. Nat Mater. 2007;6:76–83.
  3. Gaharwar AK, Dammu SA, et al. Highly extensible, tough, and elastomeric nanocomposite hydrogels from poly (ethylene glycol) and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. Biomacromol. 2011;12:1641–1650.
  4. Paul DR, Robeson LM. Polymer nanotechnology: nanocomposites. Polymer. 2008;49:3187–3204.
  5. Goenka S, Sant V, et al. Graphene-based nanomaterials for drug delivery and tissue engineering. J Controlled Release. 2014;173:75–88.
  6. Mitragotri S, Lahann J. Physical approaches to biomaterial design. Nat Mater. 2009;8:15–23.
  7. Satarkar NS, Biswal D, et al. Hydrogel nanocomposites: A review of applications as remote controlled biomaterials. Soft Matter. 2010;6:2364–2371.
  8. Lee C, Wei X, et al. Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene. Sci. 2008;321:385–388.
  9. Vaia R, Baur J. Adaptive composites. Sci. 2008;319:420–421.
  10. Dundigalla A, Lin‐Gibson S, et al. Unusual multilayered structures in poly (ethylene oxide)/laponite nanocomposite films. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2005;26:143–149.
  11. Williams DF. On the nature of biomaterials. Biomater. 2009;30:5897–5909.
  12. Huebsch N, Mooney DJ. Inspiration and application in the evolution of biomaterials. Nat. 2009;462:426–432.
  13. Hench LL, Polak JM. Third-generation biomedical materials. Sci. 2002;295:1014–1017.
  14. Ma PX, Elisseeff J: Scaffolding in tissue engineering, CRC press; 2005.
  15. Peppas NA, Hilt JZ, et al. Hydrogels in biology and medicine: from molecular principles to bionanotechnology. Adv Mater. 2006;18:1345–1360.
  16. Hirst AR, Escuder B, et al. High‐tech applications of self‐assembling supramolecular nanostructured gel‐phase materials: from regenerative medicine to electronic devices. Angewandte Chemie Int Ed. 2008;47:8002–8018.
  17. Stuart MAC, Huck WT, et al. Emerging applications of stimuli-responsive polymer materials. Nat Mat. 2010;9:101–113.
  18. Kohane DS, Langer R. Polymeric biomaterials in tissue engineering. Pediatr Res. 2008;63:487–491.
  19. Fratzl P, Weinkamer R. Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog Mater Sci. 2007;52:1263–1334.
  20. Gao H, Ji B, et al. Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: Lessons from nature. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2003;100:5597–5600.
  21. Tang Z, Kotov NA, et al. Nanostructured artificial nacre. Nat Mat. 2003;2:413–418.
  22. Weiner S, Wagner HD. The material bone: structure-mechanical function relations. Ann Rev Mater Sci. 1998;28:271–298.
  23. Wagner HD. Paving the way to stronger materials. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2:742–744.
  24. Vaia RA, Wagner HD. Framework for nanocomposites. Mat Today. 2004;7:32–37.
  25. Okada A, Usuki A. Twenty years of polymer‐clay nanocomposites. Macromol Mater Eng. 2006;291:1449–1476.
  26. Vaia RA, Giannelis EP. Polymer nanocomposites: status and opportunities. MRS Bullet. 2001;26:394–401.
  27. Faucheu J, Gauthier C, et al. Miniemulsion polymerization for synthesis of structured clay/polymer nanocomposites: Short review and recent advances. Polymer. 2010;51:6–17.
  28. Xu W, Raychowdhury S, et al. Dramatic Improvements in Toughness in Poly (lactide‐co‐glycolide) Nanocomposites. Small. 2008;4:662–669.
  29. Lee JH, Park TG, et al. Thermal and mechanical characteristics of poly (L-lactic acid) nanocomposite scaffold. Biomater. 2003;24:2773–2778.
  30. Lee YH, Lee JH, et al. Electrospun dual-porosity structure and biodegradation morphology of Montmorillonite reinforced PLLA nanocomposite scaffolds. Biomater. 2005;26:3165–3172.
  31. Tsivintzelis I, Marras SI, et al. Porous poly (l-lactic acid) nanocomposite scaffolds prepared by phase inversion using supercritical CO2 as antisolvent. Polymer. 2007;48:6311–6318.
  32. Ozkoc G, Kemaloglu S, et al. Production of poly (lactic acid)/organoclay nanocomposite scaffolds by microcompounding and polymer/particle leaching. Polymer Composites. 2010;31:674–683.
  33. Krikorian V, Pochan DJ. Poly (L-lactic acid)/layered silicate nanocomposite: Fabrication, characterization, and properties. Chem Mater. 2003;15:4317–4324.
  34. Zhuang H, Zheng JP, et al. In vitro biodegradation and biocompatibility of gelatin/montmorillonite-chitosan intercalated nanocomposite. Journal of Materials Science: Mater Med. 2007;18:951–957.
  35. Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff HM, Wen MC, et al. The effect of organo clay and adsorbed FeO3 nanoparticles on cells cultured on Ethylene Vinyl Acetate substrates and fibers. Biomater. 2009;30:8–18.
  36. Xu R, Manias E, et al. New biomedical poly (urethane urea) − layered silicate nanocomposites. Macromol. 2001;34:337–339.
  37. Xu R, Manias E, et al. Low permeability biomedical polyurethane nanocomposites. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. 2003;64:114–119.
  38. Sinha Ray S, Yamada K, et al. Polylactide-layered silicate nanocomposite: a novel biodegradable material. Nano Letters. 2002;2:1093–1096.
  39. Yang M, Zhang Z, et al. Totally implantable artificial hearts and left ventricular assist devices: selecting impermeable polycarbonate urethane to manufacture ventricles. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials. 1999;48:13–23.
  40. Haraguchi K, Takehisa T. Nanocomposite hydrogels: A unique organic–inorganic network structure with extraordinary mechanical, optical, and swelling/de‐swelling properties. Adv Mater. 2002;14:1120–1124.
  41. Haraguchi K, Takehisa T, et al. Control of cell cultivation and cell sheet detachment on the surface of polymer/clay nanocomposite hydrogels. Biomacromol. 2006;7:3267–3275.
  42. Schmidt G, Nakatani AI, et al. Shear orientation of viscoelastic polymer− clay solutions probed by flow birefringence and SANS. Macromol. 2000;33:7219–7222.
  43. Haraguchi K, Li H-J. Mechanical properties and structure of polymer− clay nanocomposite gels with high clay content. Macromol. 2006;39:1898–1905.
  44. Haraguchi K, Farnworth R, et al. Compositional effects on mechanical properties of nanocomposite hydrogels composed of poly (N, N-dimethylacrylamide) and clay. Macromol. 2003;36:5732–5741.
  45. Haraguchi K, Takehisa T, et al. Effects of clay content on the properties of nanocomposite hydrogels composed of poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) and clay. Macromol. 2002;35:10162–10171.
  46. Gaharwar AK, Schexnailder P, et al. Highly extensible bio‐nanocomposite films with direction‐dependent properties. Adv Funct Mater. 2010;20:429–436.
  47. Jin Q, Schexnailder P, et al. Silicate Cross‐Linked Bio‐Nanocomposite Hydrogels from PEO and Chitosan. Macromolecular Biosci. 2009;9:1028–1035.
  48. Haraguchi K, Li H-J, et al. Mechanism of forming organic/inorganic network structures during in-situ free-radical polymerization in PNIPA − clay nanocomposite hydrogels. Macromol. 2005;38:3482–3490.
  49. Haraguchi K, Song L. Microstructures formed in co-cross-linked networks and their relationships to the optical and mechanical properties of PNIPA/clay nanocomposite gels. Macromol. 2007;40:5526–5536.
  50. Loizou E, Butler P, et al. Large scale structures in polymer-clay hydrogels. Macromol. 2005;38:2047–2049.
  51. Harris, J.M. Poly(ethylene glycol) Chemistry: Biotechnical and biomedical applications. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press; 1992. pp. 1–12.
  52. Schexnailder P, Loizou E, et al. Heterogeneity in nanocomposite hydrogels from poly (ethylene oxide) cross-linked with silicate nanoparticles. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2009;11:2760–2766.
  53. Yano K, Usuki A, et al. Synthesis and properties of polyimide‐clay hybrid films. J Polymer Sci Part A: Polymer Chem. 1997;35:2289–2294.
  54. Cypes SH, Saltzman WM, et al. Organosilicate-polymer drug delivery systems: controlled release and enhanced mechanical properties. J Controlled Release. 2003;90:163–169.
  55. Wu CJ, Schmidt G. Thermosensitive and dissolution properties in nanocomposite polymer hydrogels. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2009;30:1492–1497.
  56. Lee WF, Chen YC. Effect of bentonite on the physical properties and drug‐release behavior of poly (AA‐co‐PEGMEA)/bentonite nanocomposite hydrogels for mucoadhesive. J Appl Polymer Sci. 2004;91:2934–2941.
  57. Takahashi T, Yamada Y, et al. Preparation of a novel PEG–clay hybrid as a DDS material: dispersion stability and sustained release profiles. J Controlled Release. 2005;107:408–416.
  58. Misra SK, Valappil SP, et al. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)/inorganic phase composites for tissue engineering applications. Biomacromol. 2006;7:2249–2258.
  59. Carlisle E, Alpenfels W: Silicon requirement for normal growth of cartilage in culture. in Fed Proc, FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL 9650 ROCKVILLE PIKE, BETHESDA, MD 20814-3998
  60. Schwarz K. A bound form of silicon in glycosaminoglycans and polyuronides. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1973;70:1608–1612.
  61. Schwarz K, Milne DB. Growth-promoting effects of silicon in rats. Nat. 1972;239:333–334.
  62. Hench LL. Genetic design of bioactive glass. J Eur Ceramic Soc. 2009;29:1257–1265.
  63. Vogel M, Voigt C, et al. In vivo comparison of bioactive glass particles in rabbits. Biomater. 2001;22:357–362.
  64. Valerio P, Pereira MM, et al. The effect of ionic products from bioactive glass dissolution on osteoblast proliferation and collagen production. Biomater. 2004;25:2941–2948.
  65. Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, et al. Gene‐expression profiling of human osteoblasts following treatment with the ionic products of Bioglass® 45S5 dissolution. J Biomed Mater Res: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. 2001;55:151–157.
  66. Jones JR, Ehrenfried LM, et al. Optimising bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomater. 2006;27:964–973.
  67. Mansur HS, Costa HS. Nanostructured poly (vinyl alcohol)/bioactive glass and poly (vinyl alcohol)/chitosan/bioactive glass hybrid scaffolds for biomedical applications. Chem Eng J. 2008;137:72–83.
  68. Blaker J, Gough J, et al. In vitro evaluation of novel bioactive composites based on Bioglass®‐filled polylactide foams for bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. 2003;67:1401–1411.
  69. Verrier S, Blaker JJ, et al. PDLLA/Bioglass® composites for soft-tissue and hard-tissue engineering: An in vitro cell biology assessment. Biomater. 2004;25:3013–3021.
  70. Day RM, Boccaccini AR, et al. Assessment of polyglycolic acid mesh and bioactive glass for soft-tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomater. 2004;25:5857–5866.
  71. Webster TJ, Ergun C, et al. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomater. 2000;21:1803–1810.
  72. Misra SK, Ansari T, et al. Effect of nanoparticulate bioactive glass particles on bioactivity and cytocompatibility of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) composites. J Royal Soc Interface. 2010;7:453–465.
  73. Misra SK, Mohn D, et al. Comparison of nanoscale and microscale bioactive glass on the properties of P (3HB)/Bioglass® composites. Biomater. 2008;29:1750–1761.
  74. Kotela I, Podporska J, et al. Polymer nanocomposites for bone tissue substitutes. Ceramics Int. 2009;35:2475–2480.
  75. 7Wei J, Heo S, et al. Preparation and characterization of bioactive calcium silicate and poly (ϵ‐caprolactone) nanocomposite for bone tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. 2009;90:702–712.
  76. Kim HW, Lee HH, et al. Bioactivity and osteoblast responses of novel biomedical nanocomposites of bioactive glass nanofiber filled poly (lactic acid). J Biomed Mater Res. Part A: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. 2008;85:651–663.
  77. El-Kady AM, Ali AF, et al. Development, characterization, and in vitro bioactivity studies of sol-gel bioactive glass/poly (L-lactide) nanocomposite scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng: C. 2010;30:120–131.
  78. Peter M, Binulal N, et al. Nanocomposite scaffolds of bioactive glass ceramic nanoparticles disseminated chitosan matrix for tissue engineering applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2010;79:284–289.
  79. Peter M, Binulal N, et al. Novel biodegradable chitosan–gelatin/nano-bioactive glass ceramic composite scaffolds for alveolar bone tissue engineering. Chem Eng J. 2010;158:353–361.
  80. Lee E-J, Shin D-S, et al. Membrane of hybrid chitosan–silica xerogel for guided bone regeneration. Biomater. 2009;30:743–750.
  81. Heinemann S, Heinemann C, et al. Bioactive silica–collagen composite xerogels modified by calcium phosphate phases with adjustable mechanical properties for bone replacement. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:1979–1990.
  82. Ehrlich H, Janussen D, et al. Nanostructural organization of naturally occurring composites-Part II: Silica-chitin-based biocomposites. J Nanomater. 2008;54.
  83. Wong Po Foo C, Patwardhan SV, et al. Novel nanocomposites from spider silk-silica fusion (chimeric) proteins. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2006;103:9428–9433.
  84. Zhu H, Shen J, et al. Fabrication and characterization of bioactive silk fibroin/wollastonite composite scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng: C. 2010;30:132–140.
  85. Peter M, Kumar PTS, et al. Development of novel α-chitin/nanobioactive glass ceramic composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2009;78:926–931.
  86. Heinemann S, Heinemann C, et al. A novel biomimetic hybrid material made of silicified collagen: perspectives for bone replacement. Adv Eng Mater. 2007;9:1061–1068.
  87. Balazs AC, Emrick T, et al. Nanoparticle polymer composites: where two small worlds meet. Sci. 2006;314:1107–1110.
  88. 88.       Winey KI, Vaia RA. Polymer nanocomposites. MRS bulletin. 2007;32:314–322.  J Nano Elect Phys. 11, 050111–050114

 Previous Article
Next Article