Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon

Adel Dalilottojari, Wing Yin Tommy Tong, Steven J P Mcinnes, Nicolas Hans Voelcker

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (Book)Researchpeer-review

Abstract

One of the most important features that define a quality biomaterial is its ability to be in contact with biological tissue without generating an unacceptable degree of harm at the insertion/implantation site (Williams 2008). Producing biocompatible implantable devices has been a major concern as they are required to remain for prolonged periods of time inside living tissues. Recent work in biomaterial development has focused on the generation of materials that can be fully resorbed or even tuned to degrade at a specified rate and be replaced by the surrounding tissue as it heals (Bitar and Zakhem 2014). These materials can even be tuned to promote the healing process by the addition of growth factors or other drugs (Chadwick et al. 2014). To address safety concerns, each individual biomaterial needs to be precisely evaluated both in vitro and in vivo before moving into clinical trials (Jones and Grainger 2009; Kohane and Langer 2010; Kunzmann et al. 2011; Jaganathan and Godin 2012). The ability to assess a material’s biocompatibility is reliant on the ability to detect the response elicited by the local environment both in vitro and in vivo (Liu et al. 2014). A material’s overall biocompatibility will depend on a wide variety of properties including the intrinsic material properties, the local tissue environment, and the formulation and the administration route among others (Liu et al. 2014). The resulting interactions between a biomaterial and the host environment can be
Inert—having no effect on biological function
Advantageous—improving biological function
Detrimental—posing a toxic hazard to the local environment (Oberdorster 2010)
To ensure that all possible negative effects are considered, reliable and reproducible screening protocols are needed to assess the relationship between the material properties and the biological responses elicited (Nel et al. 2006; Bratlie et al. 2010). Material properties that affect biological response include size, shape, surface area, surface functionalization, crystallinity, and wettability, among others (Moghimi et al. 2005; Mitragotri and Lahann 2009).
Micro- and nanoparticle systems are now also beginning to be exploited as potential biomaterials as their nanoscale dimensions afford unique and interesting properties (Riehemann et al. 2009), which are already proving to be well suited toward medical applications in fields such as oncology (Hong et al. 2011) and ophthalmology (Cheng et al. 2008).
One promising new nanomaterial is porous silicon (PSi). PSi was discovered in 1956 by Uhlir in the context of silicon semiconductor research (Uhlir 1956). However, it was not until the subsequent pioneering work by Canham in the 1990s (Canham 1990) that PSi was revealed as a promising biomaterial. Over the last two decades, PSi has been extensively studied for biomedical applications due to its high biocompatibility and biodegradability. In addition, it is possible to generate a range of pore sizes, ranging from microporous (pore diameter < 2 nm) to macroporous (pore diameter > 50 nm up to 3 μm) (Gregg and Sing 1983; Canham 1997; Low et al. 2009). Moreover, the surface chemistry of PSi is easy to modify with a range of techniques including hydrosilylation, thermal carbonization, thermal hydrocarbonization, oxidation, and silanization (Buriak 2002; Salonen and Lehto 2008). These properties make PSi amenable to many different biological environments, once again increasing its versatility as a biomaterial for applications such as drug delivery (McInnes and Voelcker 2009), bioimaging (Park et al. 2009), and tissue engineering (McInnes and Voelcker 2014).
This chapter will summarize the research efforts currently being made to evaluate the results of exposure of PSi-based materials in both in vitro and in vivo biological environments.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationPorous Silicon
Subtitle of host publicationFrom Formation to Application: Biomedical and Sensor Applications
EditorsGhenadii Korotcenkov
Place of PublicationBoca Raton FL USA
PublisherCRC Press
Chapter17
Pages319-335
Number of pages17
Volume2
ISBN (Electronic)9781482264579
ISBN (Print)9781482264562
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

Dalilottojari, A., Tong, W. Y. T., Mcinnes, S. J. P., & Voelcker, N. H. (2015). Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon. In G. Korotcenkov (Ed.), Porous Silicon: From Formation to Application: Biomedical and Sensor Applications (Vol. 2, pp. 319-335). Boca Raton FL USA: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19205-21
Dalilottojari, Adel ; Tong, Wing Yin Tommy ; Mcinnes, Steven J P ; Voelcker, Nicolas Hans. / Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon. Porous Silicon: From Formation to Application: Biomedical and Sensor Applications. editor / Ghenadii Korotcenkov. Vol. 2 Boca Raton FL USA : CRC Press, 2015. pp. 319-335
@inbook{bd544ea6b37f421ba7f972ee02c8222a,
title = "Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon",
abstract = "One of the most important features that define a quality biomaterial is its ability to be in contact with biological tissue without generating an unacceptable degree of harm at the insertion/implantation site (Williams 2008). Producing biocompatible implantable devices has been a major concern as they are required to remain for prolonged periods of time inside living tissues. Recent work in biomaterial development has focused on the generation of materials that can be fully resorbed or even tuned to degrade at a specified rate and be replaced by the surrounding tissue as it heals (Bitar and Zakhem 2014). These materials can even be tuned to promote the healing process by the addition of growth factors or other drugs (Chadwick et al. 2014). To address safety concerns, each individual biomaterial needs to be precisely evaluated both in vitro and in vivo before moving into clinical trials (Jones and Grainger 2009; Kohane and Langer 2010; Kunzmann et al. 2011; Jaganathan and Godin 2012). The ability to assess a material’s biocompatibility is reliant on the ability to detect the response elicited by the local environment both in vitro and in vivo (Liu et al. 2014). A material’s overall biocompatibility will depend on a wide variety of properties including the intrinsic material properties, the local tissue environment, and the formulation and the administration route among others (Liu et al. 2014). The resulting interactions between a biomaterial and the host environment can be Inert—having no effect on biological function Advantageous—improving biological function Detrimental—posing a toxic hazard to the local environment (Oberdorster 2010) To ensure that all possible negative effects are considered, reliable and reproducible screening protocols are needed to assess the relationship between the material properties and the biological responses elicited (Nel et al. 2006; Bratlie et al. 2010). Material properties that affect biological response include size, shape, surface area, surface functionalization, crystallinity, and wettability, among others (Moghimi et al. 2005; Mitragotri and Lahann 2009). Micro- and nanoparticle systems are now also beginning to be exploited as potential biomaterials as their nanoscale dimensions afford unique and interesting properties (Riehemann et al. 2009), which are already proving to be well suited toward medical applications in fields such as oncology (Hong et al. 2011) and ophthalmology (Cheng et al. 2008). One promising new nanomaterial is porous silicon (PSi). PSi was discovered in 1956 by Uhlir in the context of silicon semiconductor research (Uhlir 1956). However, it was not until the subsequent pioneering work by Canham in the 1990s (Canham 1990) that PSi was revealed as a promising biomaterial. Over the last two decades, PSi has been extensively studied for biomedical applications due to its high biocompatibility and biodegradability. In addition, it is possible to generate a range of pore sizes, ranging from microporous (pore diameter < 2 nm) to macroporous (pore diameter > 50 nm up to 3 μm) (Gregg and Sing 1983; Canham 1997; Low et al. 2009). Moreover, the surface chemistry of PSi is easy to modify with a range of techniques including hydrosilylation, thermal carbonization, thermal hydrocarbonization, oxidation, and silanization (Buriak 2002; Salonen and Lehto 2008). These properties make PSi amenable to many different biological environments, once again increasing its versatility as a biomaterial for applications such as drug delivery (McInnes and Voelcker 2009), bioimaging (Park et al. 2009), and tissue engineering (McInnes and Voelcker 2014). This chapter will summarize the research efforts currently being made to evaluate the results of exposure of PSi-based materials in both in vitro and in vivo biological environments.",
author = "Adel Dalilottojari and Tong, {Wing Yin Tommy} and Mcinnes, {Steven J P} and Voelcker, {Nicolas Hans}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1201/b19205-21",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781482264562",
volume = "2",
pages = "319--335",
editor = "Ghenadii Korotcenkov",
booktitle = "Porous Silicon",
publisher = "CRC Press",
address = "Australia",

}

Dalilottojari, A, Tong, WYT, Mcinnes, SJP & Voelcker, NH 2015, Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon. in G Korotcenkov (ed.), Porous Silicon: From Formation to Application: Biomedical and Sensor Applications. vol. 2, CRC Press, Boca Raton FL USA, pp. 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19205-21

Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon. / Dalilottojari, Adel; Tong, Wing Yin Tommy; Mcinnes, Steven J P; Voelcker, Nicolas Hans.

Porous Silicon: From Formation to Application: Biomedical and Sensor Applications. ed. / Ghenadii Korotcenkov. Vol. 2 Boca Raton FL USA : CRC Press, 2015. p. 319-335.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (Book)Researchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon

AU - Dalilottojari, Adel

AU - Tong, Wing Yin Tommy

AU - Mcinnes, Steven J P

AU - Voelcker, Nicolas Hans

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - One of the most important features that define a quality biomaterial is its ability to be in contact with biological tissue without generating an unacceptable degree of harm at the insertion/implantation site (Williams 2008). Producing biocompatible implantable devices has been a major concern as they are required to remain for prolonged periods of time inside living tissues. Recent work in biomaterial development has focused on the generation of materials that can be fully resorbed or even tuned to degrade at a specified rate and be replaced by the surrounding tissue as it heals (Bitar and Zakhem 2014). These materials can even be tuned to promote the healing process by the addition of growth factors or other drugs (Chadwick et al. 2014). To address safety concerns, each individual biomaterial needs to be precisely evaluated both in vitro and in vivo before moving into clinical trials (Jones and Grainger 2009; Kohane and Langer 2010; Kunzmann et al. 2011; Jaganathan and Godin 2012). The ability to assess a material’s biocompatibility is reliant on the ability to detect the response elicited by the local environment both in vitro and in vivo (Liu et al. 2014). A material’s overall biocompatibility will depend on a wide variety of properties including the intrinsic material properties, the local tissue environment, and the formulation and the administration route among others (Liu et al. 2014). The resulting interactions between a biomaterial and the host environment can be Inert—having no effect on biological function Advantageous—improving biological function Detrimental—posing a toxic hazard to the local environment (Oberdorster 2010) To ensure that all possible negative effects are considered, reliable and reproducible screening protocols are needed to assess the relationship between the material properties and the biological responses elicited (Nel et al. 2006; Bratlie et al. 2010). Material properties that affect biological response include size, shape, surface area, surface functionalization, crystallinity, and wettability, among others (Moghimi et al. 2005; Mitragotri and Lahann 2009). Micro- and nanoparticle systems are now also beginning to be exploited as potential biomaterials as their nanoscale dimensions afford unique and interesting properties (Riehemann et al. 2009), which are already proving to be well suited toward medical applications in fields such as oncology (Hong et al. 2011) and ophthalmology (Cheng et al. 2008). One promising new nanomaterial is porous silicon (PSi). PSi was discovered in 1956 by Uhlir in the context of silicon semiconductor research (Uhlir 1956). However, it was not until the subsequent pioneering work by Canham in the 1990s (Canham 1990) that PSi was revealed as a promising biomaterial. Over the last two decades, PSi has been extensively studied for biomedical applications due to its high biocompatibility and biodegradability. In addition, it is possible to generate a range of pore sizes, ranging from microporous (pore diameter < 2 nm) to macroporous (pore diameter > 50 nm up to 3 μm) (Gregg and Sing 1983; Canham 1997; Low et al. 2009). Moreover, the surface chemistry of PSi is easy to modify with a range of techniques including hydrosilylation, thermal carbonization, thermal hydrocarbonization, oxidation, and silanization (Buriak 2002; Salonen and Lehto 2008). These properties make PSi amenable to many different biological environments, once again increasing its versatility as a biomaterial for applications such as drug delivery (McInnes and Voelcker 2009), bioimaging (Park et al. 2009), and tissue engineering (McInnes and Voelcker 2014). This chapter will summarize the research efforts currently being made to evaluate the results of exposure of PSi-based materials in both in vitro and in vivo biological environments.

AB - One of the most important features that define a quality biomaterial is its ability to be in contact with biological tissue without generating an unacceptable degree of harm at the insertion/implantation site (Williams 2008). Producing biocompatible implantable devices has been a major concern as they are required to remain for prolonged periods of time inside living tissues. Recent work in biomaterial development has focused on the generation of materials that can be fully resorbed or even tuned to degrade at a specified rate and be replaced by the surrounding tissue as it heals (Bitar and Zakhem 2014). These materials can even be tuned to promote the healing process by the addition of growth factors or other drugs (Chadwick et al. 2014). To address safety concerns, each individual biomaterial needs to be precisely evaluated both in vitro and in vivo before moving into clinical trials (Jones and Grainger 2009; Kohane and Langer 2010; Kunzmann et al. 2011; Jaganathan and Godin 2012). The ability to assess a material’s biocompatibility is reliant on the ability to detect the response elicited by the local environment both in vitro and in vivo (Liu et al. 2014). A material’s overall biocompatibility will depend on a wide variety of properties including the intrinsic material properties, the local tissue environment, and the formulation and the administration route among others (Liu et al. 2014). The resulting interactions between a biomaterial and the host environment can be Inert—having no effect on biological function Advantageous—improving biological function Detrimental—posing a toxic hazard to the local environment (Oberdorster 2010) To ensure that all possible negative effects are considered, reliable and reproducible screening protocols are needed to assess the relationship between the material properties and the biological responses elicited (Nel et al. 2006; Bratlie et al. 2010). Material properties that affect biological response include size, shape, surface area, surface functionalization, crystallinity, and wettability, among others (Moghimi et al. 2005; Mitragotri and Lahann 2009). Micro- and nanoparticle systems are now also beginning to be exploited as potential biomaterials as their nanoscale dimensions afford unique and interesting properties (Riehemann et al. 2009), which are already proving to be well suited toward medical applications in fields such as oncology (Hong et al. 2011) and ophthalmology (Cheng et al. 2008). One promising new nanomaterial is porous silicon (PSi). PSi was discovered in 1956 by Uhlir in the context of silicon semiconductor research (Uhlir 1956). However, it was not until the subsequent pioneering work by Canham in the 1990s (Canham 1990) that PSi was revealed as a promising biomaterial. Over the last two decades, PSi has been extensively studied for biomedical applications due to its high biocompatibility and biodegradability. In addition, it is possible to generate a range of pore sizes, ranging from microporous (pore diameter < 2 nm) to macroporous (pore diameter > 50 nm up to 3 μm) (Gregg and Sing 1983; Canham 1997; Low et al. 2009). Moreover, the surface chemistry of PSi is easy to modify with a range of techniques including hydrosilylation, thermal carbonization, thermal hydrocarbonization, oxidation, and silanization (Buriak 2002; Salonen and Lehto 2008). These properties make PSi amenable to many different biological environments, once again increasing its versatility as a biomaterial for applications such as drug delivery (McInnes and Voelcker 2009), bioimaging (Park et al. 2009), and tissue engineering (McInnes and Voelcker 2014). This chapter will summarize the research efforts currently being made to evaluate the results of exposure of PSi-based materials in both in vitro and in vivo biological environments.

U2 - 10.1201/b19205-21

DO - 10.1201/b19205-21

M3 - Chapter (Book)

SN - 9781482264562

VL - 2

SP - 319

EP - 335

BT - Porous Silicon

A2 - Korotcenkov, Ghenadii

PB - CRC Press

CY - Boca Raton FL USA

ER -

Dalilottojari A, Tong WYT, Mcinnes SJP, Voelcker NH. Biocompatibility and Bioactivity of Porous Silicon. In Korotcenkov G, editor, Porous Silicon: From Formation to Application: Biomedical and Sensor Applications. Vol. 2. Boca Raton FL USA: CRC Press. 2015. p. 319-335 https://doi.org/10.1201/b19205-21