Biological Efficacy Comparison of Natural Tussah Silk and Mulberry Silk Nanofiber Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration

Yumao Chen; Ming Chen; Yang Gao; Feng Zhang; Min Jin; Shijun Lu; Minxuan Han

doi:10.1021/acsomega.2c01784

Biological Efficacy Comparison of Natural Tussah Silk and Mulberry Silk Nanofiber Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration

ACS Omega. 2022 May 31;7(23):19979-19987. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c01784. eCollection 2022 Jun 14.

Authors

Yumao Chen¹, Ming Chen², Yang Gao³, Feng Zhang², Min Jin¹, Shijun Lu^{1

4}, Minxuan Han^{4

5}

Affiliations

¹ Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou 215005, China.
² National Engineering Laboratory for Modern Silk, College of Textile and Clothing Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China.
³ Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215005, China.
⁴ Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
⁵ Department of Orthodontics, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.

Abstract

Biopolymer nanofiber membranes are attracting interest as promising biomaterial scaffolds with a remarkable range of structural and functional performances for guided bone regeneration (GBR). In this study, tussah silk nanofiber (TSn) and Bombyx mori silk nanofiber (BSn) membranes were prepared by physical shearing. The diameters of the TSn and BSn membranes were 146.09 ± 63.56 and 120.99 ± 91.32 nm, respectively. TSn showed a Young's modulus of 3.61 ± 0.64 GPa and a tensile strength of 74.27 ± 5.19 MPa, which were superior to those of BSn, with a Young's modulus of 0.16 ± 0.03 GPa and a tensile strength of 4.86 ± 0.61 MPa. The potential of TSn and BSn membranes to guide bone regeneration was explored. In vitro, the TSn membrane exhibited significantly higher cell proliferation for MC3T3-E1 cells than the BSn membrane. In a cranial bone defect in a rat model, the TSn and BSn membranes displayed superior bone regeneration compared to the control because the membrane prevented the ingrowth of soft tissue to the defective area. Compared to the BSn membrane, the TSn membrane improved damaged bone regeneration, presumably due to its superior mechanical properties, high osteoconductivity, and increased cell proliferation. The TSn membrane has a bionic structure, excellent mechanical properties, and greater biocompatibility, making it an ideal candidate for GBR.