medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2026, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2026; 83 (4)

Evolution of bioactive glasses: from damaged bone to personalized bone regeneration.

González MG

Language: Spanish
References: 34
Page: 216-223
PDF size: 601.17 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Maxillofacial surgery faces significant challenges in reconstructing complex bone defects, requiring effective biomaterials that overcome the limitations of traditional grafts. In this context, bioactive glasses (VB), introduced by Hench with Bioglass 45S5, represented a milestone due to their ability to form a direct bond with bone tissue through the induction of hydroxyapatite. However, the first generation of fusion-synthesized VBs presented limitations such as low porosity, restricted control, and difficulty in drug loading. Studies led to the development of mesoporous bioactive glasses (BBMs) using a sol-gel process, marking a transition to the third generation of biomaterials. This enabled the creation of materials with high porosity and large surface area, accelerating bioactivity and fundamentally enabling the loading and controlled release of drugs, growth factors, and therapeutic ions. Doping with ions such as Sr, Zn, Cu, Ag, and B confers additional properties such as osteostimulation, angiogenesis, and antibacterial or immunomodulatory effects. Advances in 3D printing have enabled the design of VBM scaffolds with customized porous architectures that are biomimetic to bone structure, improving cell interaction, vascularization, and osseointegration. Although challenges remain regarding mechanical properties and clinical translation, these materials show promise for regeneration of large bone defects and the potential for soft tissue repair. This article is a literature review of articles published in databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and SciELO.


REFERENCES

  1. Yazdanpanah Z, Johnston JD, Cooper DML, Chen X. 3D Bioprinted scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state-of-the-art and emerging technologies. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10: 824156.

  2. Skallevold HE, Rokaya D, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS. bioactive glass applications in dentistry. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20 (23): 5960.

  3. Gupta S, Majumdar S, Krishnamurthy S. Bioactive glass: a multifunctional delivery system. J Control Release. 2021; 335: 481-497.

  4. Zhu Y, Zhang X, Chang G, Deng S, Chan HF. Bioactive glass in tissue regeneration: unveiling recent advances in regenerative strategies and applications. Adv Mater. 2025; 37 (2): e2312964.

  5. Hench LL. The story of bioglass. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006; 17 (11): 967-978.

  6. Baino F, Fiorilli S, Vitale-Brovarone C. Bioactive glass-based materials with hierarchical porosity for medical applications: Review of recent advances. Acta Biomater. 2016; 42: 18-32.

  7. Rahaman MN, Day DE, Bal BS, Fu Q, Jung SB, Bonewald LF et al. Bioactive glass in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2011; 7 (6): 2355-2373.

  8. Vallet-Regi M, Salinas AJ. Mesoporous bioactive glasses for regenerative medicine. Mater Today Bio. 2021; 11: 100121.

  9. Sepulveda P, Jones JR, Hench LL. In vitro dissolution of melt-derived 45S5 and sol-gel derived 58S bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 61 (2): 301-311.

  10. Crush J, Hussain A, Seah KTM, Khan WS. Bioactive glass: methods for assessing angiogenesis and osteogenesis. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021; 9: 643781.

  11. Bi L, Jung S, Day D, Neidig K, Dusevich V, Eick D et al. Evaluation of bone regeneration, angiogenesis, and hydroxyapatite conversion in critical-sized rat calvarial defects implanted with bioactive glass scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012; 100A (12): 3267-3275.

  12. Hench LL, Jones JR. Bioactive glasses: frontiers and challenges. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015; 3: 194.

  13. Li R, Clark AE, Hench LL. An investigation of bioactive glass powders by sol-gel processing. J Appl Biomater. 1991; 2 (4): 231-239. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1002/jab.770020403

  14. Deshmukh K, Kovárík T, Krenek T, Docheva D, Stich T, Pola J. Recent advances and future perspectives of sol-gel derived porous bioactive glasses: a review. RSC Adv. 2020; 10 (56): 33782-33835.

  15. Yan X, Yu C, Zhou X, Tang J, Zhao D. Highly ordered mesoporous bioactive glasses with superior in vitro bone-forming bioactivities. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2004; 43 (44): 5980-5984. doi: 10.1002/anie.200460598.

  16. Vrouwenvelder WC, Groot CG, de Groot K. Better histology and biochemistry for osteoblasts cultured on titanium-doped bioactive glass: bioglass 45S5 compared with iron-, titanium-, fluorine- and boron-containing bioactive glasses. Biomaterials. 1994; 15 (2): 97-106. doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(94)90257-7.

  17. Acevedo MA, Miguez J, Ortiz M. Efecto de la incorporación de Zn y Mg en el comportamiento de vidrios bioactivos modificados en entornos hipóxicos. Revista Iberoamericana de Biomateriales. 2010; 14 (2): 45-53.

  18. Hoppe A, Güldal NS, Boccaccini AR. A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials. 2011; 32 (11): 2757-2774.

  19. Valerio P, Pereira MM, Goes AM, Leite MF. Effects of extracellular calcium concentration on the glutamate release by bioactive glass (BG60S) preincubated osteoblasts. Biomed Mater. 2009; 4 (4): 045011.

  20. Ege D, Zheng K, Boccaccini AR. Borate bioactive glasses (BBG): bone regeneration, wound healing applications, and future directions. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2022; 5 (8): 3608-3622.

  21. Devirian TA, Volpe SL. The physiological effects of dietary boron. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2003; 43 (2): 219-231.

  22. Lee SS, Du X, Kim I, Ferguson SJ. Scaffolds for bone-tissue engineering. Matter. 2022; 5 (9): 2722-2759.

  23. Yun HS, Kim SE, Hyun YT, Heo SJ, Shin JW. Hierarchically mesoporous-macroporous bioactive glasses scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008; 87 (2): 374-380.

  24. Wu C, Chang J. Mesoporous bioactive glasses: structure characteristics, drug/growth factor delivery and bone regeneration application. Interface Focus. 2012; 2 (3): 292-306.

  25. Simske SJ, Ayers RA, Bateman TA. Porous materials for bone engineering. MSF 1997; 250: 151-182.

  26. Wu C, Luo Y, Cuniberti G, Xiao Y, Gelinsky M. Three-dimensional printing of hierarchical and tough mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds with a controllable pore architecture, excellent mechanical strength and mineralization ability. Acta Biomater. 2011; 7 (6): 2644-2650.

  27. Webb PA. A review of rapid prototyping (RP) techniques in the medical and biomedical sector. J Med Eng Technol. 2000; 24 (4): 149-153.

  28. Du M, Chen B, Meng Q, Liu S, Zheng X, Zhang C et al. 3D bioprinting of BMSC-laden methacrylamide gelatin scaffolds with CBD-BMP2-collagen microfibers. Biofabrication. 2015; 7 (4): 044104.

  29. Fu Q, Saiz E, Rahaman MN, Tomsia AP. Bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state of the art and future perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2011; 31 (7): 1245-1256.

  30. Caeiro JR, González P, Guede D. Biomechanics and bone (& II): trials in different hierarchical levels of bone and alternative tools for the determination of bone strength. Rev Osteoporos Metab Miner. 2013; 5 (2): 99-108.

  31. Will J, Gerhardt LC, Boccaccini AR. Bioactive glass-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2012; 126: 195-226.

  32. Winston DD, Li T, Lei B. Bioactive nanoglass regulating the myogenic differentiation and skeletal muscle regeneration. Regen Biomater. 2023; 10: rbad059.

  33. Sun L, Wang Y, Xu D, Zhao Y. Emerging technologies for cardiac tissue engineering and artificial hearts. Smart Med. 2023; 2 (1): e20220040.

  34. Xing Y, Qiu L, Liu D, Dai S, Sheu CL. The role of smart polymeric biomaterials in bone regeneration: a review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11: 1240861.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com