Antibacterial Effect of Pre-constructed 3D Bone Scaffolds before and after Modification with Propolis

Mai Hesham; Hisham Elshishtawy; Sherihan El Kady; Dina Wahied

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.7208

Authors

Mai Hesham Department of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts, 6th of October City, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7422-8524
Hisham Elshishtawy Department of Microbial Molecular Biology, AGERI, Giza, Egypt
Sherihan El Kady Clinical and Chemical Pathology, Kar el Aini, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt; Department of General Pathology, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts, 6th of October City, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4653-5329
Dina Wahied Department of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, October University of Modern Sciences and Arts, 6th of October City, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8006-6901

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.7208

Keywords:

Propolis, Bone scaffold, Antibacterial activity

Abstract

AIM: This study was to determine and compare the antibacterial activity of different scaffold materials before and after their modification with ethanolic extract of Egyptian propolis ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP).

SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Preparation of the dry mass of propolis, preparation of EEP, preparation of the scaffolds, and antibacterial activity testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four bacterial strains were used to determine the antibacterial activity of two different scaffold materials before and after their modification with EEP (15% and 25% by weight).

RESULTS: Tricalcium phosphate + gelatin binder modified by 25% EEP exhibited the highest antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli. While, tricalcium phosphate + (alginate and cellulose nanowhiskers) binder modified by 25% EEP demonstrated the highest antibacterial activity Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, and Lactobacillus casei.

CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that EEP had a significant effect on the antibacterial activity of both scaffold materials; the antibacterial activity was higher against Gram-positive bacteria.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Mohamed S, Shamaz BH. Bone tissue engineering and bony scaffolds. Int J Dent Oral Health. 2015;1(1):15-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25141/2471-657X-2015-1.0001

Ercal P, Pekozer GG. A current overview of scaffold-based bone regeneration strategies with dental stem cells. In: Turksen K, editor. Cell Biology and Translational Medicine, Volume. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Vol. 1288. Cham: Springer; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2020_505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2020_505

O’Brien FJ. Biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today. 2011;14(3):88-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70058-X

Griffith M, Islam MM, Edin J, Papapavlou G, Buznyk O, Patra HK. The quest for anti-inflammatory and anti-infective biomaterials in clinical translation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2016;4:71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2016.00071 PMid:27668213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2016.00071

Anastasiou AD, Nerantzaki M, Gounari E, Duggal MS, Giannoudis PV, Jha A, et al. Antibacterial properties and regenerative potential of Sr2+ and Ce3+ doped fluorapatites; a potential solution for peri-implantitis. Sci Rep. 2019;9:14469. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50916-4 PMid:31597949 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50916-4

Khurshid Z, Naseem M, Zafar MS, Najeeb S, Zohaib S. Propolis: A natural biomaterial for dental and oral healthcare. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2017;11(4):265-74. PMid:29354255

Kumar LS. Propolis in dentistry and oral cancer management. N Am J Med Sci. 2014;6(6):250-9. PMid:25006559 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.134369

Skaba D, Morawiec T, Tanasiewicz M, Mertas A, Bobela E, Szliszka E, et al. Influence of the toothpaste with Brazilian ethanol extract propolis on the oral cavity health. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:215391. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/215391 PMid:23861699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/215391

Capistrano HM, de Assis EM, Leal RM, Alvarez-Leite ME, Brener S, Bastos EM. Brazilian green propolis compared to miconazole gel in the treatment of Candida-associated denture stomatitis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:947980. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/947980 PMid:23737855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/947980

Bankova V, Popova M, Bogdanov S and Sabatini AG. Chemical composition of European propolis: Expected and unexpected results. Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2002;57(5-6):530-3. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2002-5-622 PMid:12132697 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2002-5-622

Aal-Saraj AB, Ariffin Z, Masudi SM. An agar diffusion study comparing the antimicrobial activity of Nanoseal with some other endodontic sealers. Aust Endod J. 2012;38(2):60-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2010.00241.x PMid:22827817 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2010.00241.x

Lim MM, Sultana N. In vitro cytotoxicity and antibacterial activity of silver-coated electrospun polycaprolactone/gelatine nanofibrous scaffolds. Biotechnology. 2016;6(2):211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0531-6 PMid:28330282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0531-6

Turnbull G, Clarke J, Picard F, Riches P, Jia L, Han F, et al. 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Bioact Mater. 2017;3(3):278-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.10.001 PMid:29744467 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.10.001

Przekora A. Current trends in fabrication of biomaterials for bone and cartilage regeneration: Materials modifications and biophysical stimulations. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(2):435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20020435 PMid:30669519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20020435

Eskandarinia A, Kefayat A, Agheb M, Rafienia M, Baghbadorani MA, Navid S, et al. A novel bilayer wound dressing composed of a dense polyurethane/propolis membrane and a biodegradable polycaprolactone/gelatin nanofibrous scaffold. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):3063. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59931-2 PMid:32080256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59931-2

Margeretha I, Suniarti DF, Herda E, Mas’ud ZA. Optimization and comparative study of different extraction methods of biologically active components of Indonesian propolis Trigona spp. J Nat Prod Resour. 2012;5:233-42.

Beltagy TM, Abd-Elmonsef ME. Antibacterial and mechanical assays of resin modified glass ionomer containing propolis extract. Egypt Dent J. 2018;64(1):33-45. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2018.76362 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2018.76362

Wiegand C, Abel M, Ruth P, Elsner P, Hipler UC. In vitro assessment of the antimicrobial activity of wound dressings: Influence of the test method selected and impact of the pH. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26(1):5343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5343-9 PMid:25578697 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5343-9

Cheng T, Qu H, Zhang G, Zhang X. Osteogenic and antibacterial properties of vancomycin-laden mesoporous bioglass/PLGA composite scaffolds for bone regeneration in infected bone defects. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2018;46(8):1935-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2017.1396997 PMid:29113502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2017.1396997

Pant J, Sundaram J, Goudie MJ, Nguyen DJ, Handa H. Antibacterial 3D bone scaffolds for tissue engineering application. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019;107(4):1068-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34199 PMid:30230685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34199

Seyedmajidi S, Rajabnia R, Seyedmajidi M. Evaluation of antibacterial properties of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass and fluorapatite/bioactive glass nanocomposite foams as a cellular scaffold of bone tissue. J Lab Physicians. 2018;10(3):265-70. https://doi.org/10.4103/jlp.jlp_167_17 PMid:30078960 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JLP.JLP_167_17

Hameed AS, Al-Warid RJ, Obaid IA. Anti-bacterial action of multi-component bioactive glass coating for surgical suture. J Univ Babylon Pure Appl Sci. 2016;24(5):1395-400.

Przybyłek I, Karpiński TM. Antibacterial properties of propolis. Molecules. 2019;24(11):2047. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24112047 PMid:31146392 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24112047

Seidel V, Peyfoon E, Watson DG, Fearnley J. Comparative study of the antibacterial activity of propolis from different geographical and climatic zones. Phytother Res. 2008;22(9):1256-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2480 PMid:18570199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2480

Abbasi AJ, Mohammadi F, Bayat M, Gema SM, Ghadirian H, Seifi H, et al. Applications of propolis in dentistry: A review. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2018;28(4):505-12. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v28i4.16 PMid:30607063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v28i4.16

Moreno MI, Isla MI, Cudmani NG, Vattuone MA, Sampietro AR. Screening of antibacterial activity of Amaicha Del Valle (Tucuman, Argentina) propolis. J Ethnopharmacol. 1999;68(1- 3):97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8741(99)00051-3 PMid:10624867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8741(99)00051-3

Sforcin JM, Fernandes A Jr., Lopes CA, Bankova V, Funari SR. Seasonal effect on Brazilian propolis antibacterial activity. J Ethnopharmacol. 2000;73(1-2):243-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8741(00)00320-2 PMid:11025162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8741(00)00320-2

Ozan F, Sümer Z, Polat ZA, Er K, Ozan U, Deer O. Effect of mouth rinse containing propolis on oral microorganisms and human gingival fibroblast. Eur J Dent. 2007;1(4):195-200. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698339 PMid:19212467 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698339

Dziedzic A, Kubina R, Wojtyczka RD, Dzik AK, Tanasiewicz M, Morawiec T. The antibacterial effect of ethanol extract of polish propolis on mutans streptococci and lactobacilli isolated from saliva. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:681891. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/681891 PMid:23606887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/681891

Hickey RJ, Pelling AE. Cellulose biomaterials for tissue engineering. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:45. PMid:30968018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00045