Composition Structure Property Relationships in Bioactive Glasses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMPOSITION STRUCTURE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIPS IN BIOACTIVE GLASSES Sally Watts Doctor of Philosophy Department of Materials Imperial College London London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom COMPOSITION STRUCTURE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIPS IN BIOACTIVE GLASSES Sally Watts A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy And the Diploma of Imperial College Supervised by: Professor Robert Hill and Dr. Rob Law Department of Materials Imperial College London London SW7 2AZ United Kingdom February 2010 2 Hench developed the first bioactive material, Bioglass®, based on a soda-lime phospho-silicate glass. Most materials, elicit a neutral response when implanted into the human body. Bioglass®, however, was seen to create a positive response by depositing the body’s natural bone substance, Hydroxyapatite on its surface. Although it is recognised that compositional modifications effect bioactivity, there is very little comprehension of the composition-structure- property relationships that result in such bioactivity. The objective of this investigation, therefore, was to study such fundamental relationships with respect to two components often found in bioactive glass compositions – P2O5 and MgO. The first component studied was P2O5. The design of two series was undertaken – the first, a straight substitution of silicon for phosphorus, varying the network connectivity, NC, and the second, a charge compensating series, keeping the NC constant. 31P and 29Si MAS NMR of the two series provided evidence that the glasses were phase separated, with a predominantly Q2 silicate structure co-existing with phosphorus in a predominantly Q0 orthophosphate environment. Raman, FTIR, density measurements, differential thermal analysis and dilatometric analysis all further supported the existence of this structure. Dissolution studies in SBF highlighted the importance of phosphorus on bioactivity, with the glass dissolution rates of both series increasing with the addition of phosphorus. Instead of the dissolution of a glass depending solely on ion exchange reactions, as previously thought, it is proposed that dissolution depends upon the balance existing between the NC of the silicate phase and the existence of isolated orthophosphate rich domains. It is hypothesised that phosphorus in a phase separated structure is far more important than previously suspected, with its ability to preferentially dissolve into solution, dominating over the effect of NC on the resultant bioactivity of the glass and apatite formation. The second component investigated was magnesium oxide and its influence on the glass structure when substituted for calcium oxide. Two series of glasses were designed, the first series with a high sodium content and the second series with a low sodium content. In order to eliminate any influence due to silicate network disruption, all glasses were designed to have a constant NC of 2.04. All physical parameters were seen to be related strongly to the substitution of magnesium oxide, in both series. 31P, 29Si and 25Mg MAS-NMR of the high sodium magnesium glasses highlighted that magnesium, rather than acting to depolymerise the silicate network by acting as a network modifier, was acting partially as an intermediate oxide with a proportion entering the network as MgO4 tetrahedra. The decreasing Tg and Ts values and increasing thermal expansion coefficients, with increasing MgO substitution, supported this theory; with the significantly weaker bond strength of Mg-O, compared to Si-O, explaining the experimentally observed weakening of the network. The corresponding results for the low sodium magnesium glasses also pointed to magnesium acting as an intermediate oxide, however, with a smaller proportion entering the silicate network as MgO4 tetrahedra. It is suggested that magnesium acts as an intermediate oxide in highly disrupted glasses, with a more disrupted glass giving a higher proportion of MgO4. Dissolution studies in SBF settled the previously controversial subject of magnesium and bioactivity, with the addition of magnesium resulting in decreased glass dissolution rates and apatite formation in both series. This work has highlighted the importance of having a detailed understanding of the composition-structure-property relationships which exist in a bioactive glass. It is suggested that, from the contribution this work makes to this understanding, coupled with the knowledge gained from parallel studies, we are now at the point where a specific bioactive glass composition could be engineered, and tailored for a particular biomedical application. 3 Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my mum, dad and brother. 4 Declaration This research was carried out at Imperial College London during the period of August 2005 to September 2008. This research is my own work and has not been previously submitted to any university for any award. Sally Watts February, 2010 5 Acknowledgements I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the following people: • My supervisors, Prof. Robert Hill and Dr. Rob Law who have been a great inspiration and an absolute pleasure to work for. Their patience and guidance over the years was greatly appreciated. • The EPRSC for funding this research. • Richard Sweeney. Thank you for the advice and encouragement over the years – you are a real friend. I will miss our chats! • Members of the Materials Department – especially Dr. David McPhail and Prof. Trevor Lindley. Thank you for your support and having faith in me. • Biomaterials research group - Matt, Natalia, Delia, Nasrin (thank you for being my computer saviour!), Adam, Yann – thank you for your help and friendship. • Two of the kindest and most lovely friends I have in the world and who I will miss greatly – Lin and Hiroko. • The greatest thanks go to my mum, dad and brother for their love, unfailing encouragement and support. I love you very much and this thesis is for you. I got there in the end!! 6 Contents CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................. 10 LIST OF TABLETU S..............................................................................................................................UT ..... 17 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................... 17 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 21 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY ............................................................................................................ 23 1.2 OUTLINE OF THESIS................................................................................................................. 23 2 MATERIALS IN MEDICINE ...................................................................................................... 24 2.1 TRANSPLANTATION ................................................................................................................. 24 2.2 IMPLANTATION........................................................................................................................ 25 2.3 IMPLANT MATERIALS .............................................................................................................. 27 2.3.1 Stress Shielding.................................................................................................................. 29 2.4 FUTURE OF IMPLANT MATERIALS............................................................................................ 29 2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO MATERIALS .................................................................................. 30 2.5.1 Toxic Response................................................................................................................... 30 2.5.2 Biologically Nearly Inert: Fibrous Capsule Formation.................................................... 30 2.5.3 Bioresorption ..................................................................................................................... 31 2.5.4 Bioactive ............................................................................................................................ 31 3 GLASS............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.1 GLASS STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................. 40 3.1.1 Zachariasen’s Random Network Theory............................................................................ 40 3.1.2 Dietzel’s Structural Model................................................................................................. 46 3.1.3 Inorganic Polymer Model .................................................................................................. 48 3.2 PHASE SEPARATION................................................................................................................. 50 4 BIOACTIVE GLASSES................................................................................................................ 55 4.1 MECHANISMS OF GLASS DEGRADATION ................................................................................. 56 4.2 APATITE FORMATION .............................................................................................................