Preparation and Characterization of 3D Printed Porous 45S5 Bioglass Bioceramic for Bone Tissue Engineering Application
Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology provides advanced technical support for designing personalized bone tissue engineering scaffold. In this study, two porous diffusing models, namely, average and layered perforated cylindrical scaffolds, were designed for bone tissue engineering scaffold. The designed models were fabricated by liquid crystal display mask stereolithography printing. Structural design and finite element mechanical analysis were conducted. 45S5 bioglass was selected as the raw material for preparing the printing inks for bone tissue engineering scaffolds. By adjusting the viscosity and temperature of the slurry, the maximum proportion of 45S5 bioglass (40 wt%) was added into the photosensitive resin for preparing 3D printing slurry. Our results indicated that an optimized sintering condition includes the debinding rate (0.5°C/ min), and temperature raising rate (5°C/min) and sintering temperature (1100°C) were proposed to sinter 45S5 bioceramic scaffolds. The amorphous 45S5 bioglass showed good crystallization after sintering, and the scaffold porous structure showed good integrity. Micropores were observed in the struts which interconnected with each other. Moreover, the porosities were tested as 57% and 45% with a uniform pore distribution. The shrinkage rate was about 10% during sintering process due to binder burning and crystallization shrinkage. The compressive strength of the sintered scaffold was 0.71 ± 0.048 MPa and 2.13 ± 0.054 MPa, respectively, which are consistent with the finite element mechanical analysis simulation results. In conclusion, the layered perforated 45S5 bioglass scaffold shows good mechanical properties and porosity, indicating that it could be a promising candidate for bone tissue engineering.
1. Jakus AE, Rutz AL, Shah RN, 2016, Advancing the Field of 3D Biomaterial Printing. Biomed Mater, 11:014102. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/11/1/014102
2. Michael L, Sarah S, Shayne H, et al., 2022, 3D Printing of Ceramic Biomaterials. Eng Regen, 3:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engreg.2022.01.006
3. Varma MV, Kandasubramanian B, Ibrahim SM, 2020, 3D Printed Scaffolds for Biomedical Applications. Mater Chem Phys, 255:123642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.123642
4. Dabbagh SR, Sarabi MR, Rahbarghazi R, et al., 2021, 3D-printed Microneedles in Biomedical Applications. iScience, 24:102012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.102012
5. Sun H, Zhang C, Zhang B, et al., 2022, 3D Printed Calcium Phosphate Scaffolds with Controlled Release of Osteogenic Drugs for Bone Regeneration. Chem Eng J, 427:130961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130961
6. Liu X, Chen M, Luo J, et al., 2021, Immunopolarization regulated 3D Printed-electrospun Fibrous Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration. Biomaterials, 276:121037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121037
7. Lin K, Sheikh R, Romanazzo S, et al., 2019, 3D Printing of Bioceramic Scaffolds-Barriers to the Clinical Translation: From Promise to Reality, and Future Perspectives. Materials, 12:2660–80. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172660
8. Shi C, Hou X, Zhao D, et al., 2022, Preparation of the Bioglass/Chitosan-alginate Composite Scaffolds with High Bioactivity and Mechanical Properties as Bone Graft Materials. J Mech Behav Biome Mater, 126:105062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.105062
9. Faour O, Dimitriou R, Cousins CA, et al., 2011, The Use of Bone Graft Substitutes in Large Cancellous Voids: Any Specific Needs? Injury, 42:S87–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.020
10. Liang H, Zhao D, Feng X, et al., 2020, 3D-printed Porous Titanium Scaffolds Incorporating Niobium for High Bone Regeneration Capacity. Mater Des, 194:108890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108890
11. Ma H, Feng C, Chang J, et al., 2018, 3D-printed Bioceramic Scaffolds: From Bone Tissue Engineering to Tumor Therapy. Acta Biomater, 79:37–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.08.026
12. Gao C, Yao M, Shuai C, et al., 2020, Advances in Bioceramics for Bone Implant Applications. Biodes Manuf, 3:307–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00087-3
13. Amiryaghoubi N, Fathi M, Barzegari A, et al., 2021, Recent Advances in Polymeric Scaffolds Containing Carbon Nanotube and Graphene Oxide for Cartilage and Bone Regeneration. Mater Today Commun, 26:102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102097
14. Abdal-Hay A, Sheikh FA, Shmroukh AN, et al., 2021, Immobilization of Bioactive Glass Ceramics @ 2D and 3D Polyamide Polymer Substrates for Bone Tissue Regeneration. Mater Des, 210:110094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110094
15. Zerankeshi MM, Bakhshi R, Alizadeh R, 2022, Polymer/Metal Composite 3D Porous Bone Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing Techniques: A Review. Bioprinting, 25:e00191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00191
16. Mirkhalaf M, Wang X, Entezari A, et al., 2021, Redefining Architectural Effects in 3D Printed Scaffolds through Rational Design for Optimal Bone Tissue Regeneration. Appl Mater Today, 25:101168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2021.101168
17. Roque R, Barbosa GF, Guastaldi AC, 2021, Design and 3D Bioprinting of Interconnected Porous Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration. An Additive Manufacturing Approach. J Manuf Processes, 64:655–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.01.057
18. Schiele NR, Corr DT, Huang Y, et al., 2010, Laser-based Direct-write Techniques for Cell Printing. Biofabrication, 2:032001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/2/3/032001
19. Beheshtizadeh N, Azami M, Abbasi H, et al., 2021, Applying Extrusion-based 3D Printing Technique Accelerates Fabricating Complex Biphasic Calcium Phosphate-based Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Regeneration. J Adv Res, In Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2021.12.012
20. Kang JH, Jang KJ, Sakthiabirami K, et al., 2020, Mechanical Properties and Optical Evaluation of Scaffolds Produced from 45S5 Bioactive Glass Suspensions Via Stereolithography. Ceram Int, 46:2481–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.09.242
21. Kumar P, Ebbens S, Zhao X, 2021, Inkjet Printing of Mammalian Cells Theory and Applications. Bioprinting, 23:e00157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2021.e00157
22. Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW, 2010, A Review on Stereolithography and its Applications in Biomedical Engineering. Biomaterials, 31:6121–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.050
23. Tesavibul P, Felzmann R, Gruber S, et al., 2012, Processing of 45S5 Bioglass® by Lithography-based Additive Manufacturing. Mater Lett, 74:81–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2012.01.019
24. Li X, Yuan Y, Liu L, et al., 2020, 3D Printing of Hydroxyapatite/Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffold with Hierarchical Porous Structure for Bone Regeneration. Biodes Manuf, 3:15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-019-00056-5
25. Wu X, Xu C, Zhang Z, 2021, Preparation and Optimization of Si3N4 Ceramic Slurry for Low-cost LCD Mask Stereolithography. Ceram Int, 47:9400–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.12.072
26. Irbe Z, Loca D, 2021, Soluble Phosphate Salts as Setting Aids for Premixed Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement Pastes. Ceram Int, 47:24012–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.05.110
27. Carino A, Ludwig C, Cervellino A, et al., 2018, Formation and Transformation of Calcium Phosphate Phases Under Biologically Relevant Conditions: Experiments and Modelling. Acta Biomater, 74:478–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.05.027
28. Oryan A, Alidadi S, 2018, Reconstruction of Radial Bone Defect in Rat by Calcium Silicate Biomaterials. Life Sci, 201:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2018.03.048
29. Chen L, Deng C, Li J, et al., 2019, 3D Printing of a Lithium-Calcium-Silicate Crystal Bioscaffold with Dual Bioactivities for Osteochondral Interface Reconstruction, Biomaterials, 196:138–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.005
30. Jurczyk MU, Jurczyk K, Miklaszewski A, et al., 2011, Nanostructured Titanium-45S5 Bioglass Scaffold Composites for Medical Applications. Mater Des, 32:4882–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.06.005
31. Schmitz SI, Widholz B, Essers C, et al., 2020, Superior Biocompatibility and Comparable Osteoinductive Properties: Sodium-reduced Fluoride-containing Bioactive Glass Belonging to the CaO-MgO-SiO2 System as a Promising Alternative to 45S5 Bioactive Glass. Bioact Mater, 5:55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.12.005
32. Martel A, Armendáriz IO, García AT, et al., 2017, Evaluation of In Vitro Bioactivity of 45S5 Bioactive Glass/Poly Lactic Acid Scaffolds Produced by 3D Printing. Int J Compos Mater, 7:144–9. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.cmaterials.20170705.03
33. Aráoz B, Karakaya E, Wusener AG, et al., 2021, 3D Printed Poly (Hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) 45S5 Bioactive Glass Composite Resorbable Scaffolds Suitable for Bone Regeneration. J Mater Res, 36:4000–12. https://doi.org/10.1557/s43578-021-00272-9
34. Chartrain NA, Williams CB, Whittington AR, 2018,A Review on Fabricating Tissue Scaffolds Using Vat Photopolym erization. Acta Biomater, 74:90–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.05.010
35. Goswami A, Ankit K, Balashanmugam N, Umarji AM, et al., 2014, Optimization of Rheological Properties of Photopolymerizable Alumina Suspensions for Ceramic Microstereolithography. Ceram Int, 40:3655–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.09.059
36. Hinczewski C, Corbel S, Chartier T, 1998, Ceramic Suspensions Suitable for Stereolithography. J Eur CeramSoc, 18:583–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0955-2219(97)00186-6
37. Eqtesadi S, Motealleh A, Miranda P, et al., 2014, Robocasting of 45S5 Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. J Eur Ceram Soc, 34:107–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.08.003
38. Chen QZ, Thompson ID, Boccaccini AR, 2006, 45S5 Bioglass-derived Glass-ceramic Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Biomaterials, 27:2414–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.025
39. Thavornyutikarn B, Tesavibul P, Sitthiseripratip K, et al., 2017, Porous 45S5 Bioglass(R)-based Scaffolds Using Stereolithography: Effect of Partial Pre-sintering on Structural and Mechanical Properties of Scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 75:1281–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.001
40. Boccaccini AR, Chen Q, Lefebvre L, et al., 2007, Sintering, Crystallisation and Biodegradation Behaviour of Bioglass derived Glass-ceramics. Faraday Discuss, 136:27–44; discussion 107–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/b616539g
41. Woodard JR, Hilldore AJ, Lan SK, et al., 2007, The Mechanical Properties and Osteo conductivity of Hydroxyapatite Bone Scaffolds with Multi-scale Porosity. Biomaterials, 28:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.08.021
42. Fu Z, Zhuang Y, Cui J, et al., 2022, Development and Challenges of Cells- and Materials-based Tooth Regeneration. Eng Regen, 3:163–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engreg.2022.04.003
43. Wei H, Cui J, Lin K, et al., 2022, Recent Advances in Smart Stimuli-responsive Biomaterials for Bone Therapeutics and Regeneration. Bone Res, 10:17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41413-021-00180-y
44. Bigham, A, Foroughi, F, Rezvani G, et al., 2020, The Journey of Multifunctional Bone Scaffolds Fabricated from Traditional toward Modern Techniques. Biodes Manuf, 3:281–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00094-4
45. Zhang B, Pei X, Song P, et al., 2018, Porous Bioceramics Produced by Inkjet 3D Printing: Effect of Printing Ink Formulation on the Ceramic Macro and Micro Porous Architectures Control. Compos Part B Eng, 155:112–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.047