Research and analysis of the properties of bredigite-based 3D-printed bone scaffolds
The use of bone tissue-engineered scaffolds for repairing bone defects has become extremely common. Bone tissue-engineered scaffolds should have good mechanical properties, a pore structure similar to that of natural bone, appropriate biodegradability, and good biocompatibility to provide attachment sites for growth factors and seed cells. They also need to exhibit special functions such as osteoconductivity and osteoinduction. In this study, the mechanical, degradation, and biological properties of bredigite were studied by using a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) model structure. Pressure tests on bone tissue-engineered scaffolds showed that the mechanical properties of TPMS scaffolds were significantly better than those of open-rod scaffolds with the same porosity. By analyzing the biological properties, we found that the TPMS model had better protein adsorption ability than the open-rod model, the cells could better adsorb on the surface of the TPMS scaffold, and the proliferation number and proliferation rate of the TPMS model were higher than those of the open-ended rod model.
1. Wang WG, Lu ZH, Li JS, et al., 2020, Engineering the biological performance of hierarchical nanostructured poly(ε-carpolactone) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Cirp Ann-Manuf Techn, 69:217–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2020.04.044
2. Andrzejowski P, Giannoudis PV, 2019, The ‘diamond concept’ for long bone non-union management. J Orthop Traumatol, 20:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-019-0528-0
3. Zhao W, He B, Zhou A, et al., 2019, D-RADA16-RGD-reinforced nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 ternary biomaterial for bone formation. Tissue Eng Regen Med, 16:177–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-018-0171-5
4. Fu M, Wang F, Lin G, 2021, Design and research of bone repair scaffold based on two-way fluid-structure interaction. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 204:106055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106055
5. Zou L, Hu L, Pan P, et al., 2022, Icariin-releasing 3D printed scaffold for bone regeneration. Compos Part B-Eng, 232:109625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109625
6. Ma P, Wu W, Wei Y, et al., 2021, Biomimetic gelatin/chitosan/ polyvinyl alcohol/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Design, 207:109865. https:// doi.org/: 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109865
7. Jariwala SH, Lewis GS, Bushman ZJ, et al., 2015, 3D printing of personalized artificial bone scaffolds. 3D Print Addit Manuf, 2:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2015.0001
8. Vidal L, Kampleitner C, Brennan MA, et al., 2020, Reconstruction of large skeletal defects: Current clinical therapeutic strategies and future directions using 3D printing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 8:61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00061
9. Wang C, Huang W, Zhou Y, et al., 2020, 3D printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Bioact Mater, 5:82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.01.004
10. Pires LSO, Fernandes MHFV, De Oliveira JMM, 2018, Biofabrication of glass scaffolds by 3D printing for tissue engineering. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 98:2665–2676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2369-z
11. Jiao C, Xie D, He Z, et al., 2022, Additive manufacturing of bio-inspired ceramic bone scaffolds: Structural design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Mater Design, 217:110610. https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110610
12. Bian T, Xing H, 2022, A collagen (Col)/nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) biological composite bone scaffold with double multi-level interface reinforcement. Arab J Chem, 15:103733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.103733
13. Reyes RL, Ghim M-S, Kang N-U, et al., 2022, Development and assessment of modified-honeycomb-structure scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Addit Manuf, 54:102740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.102740
14. Hou Y, Wang W, Bartolo P, 2022, Investigation of polycaprolactone for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: In vitro degradation and biological studies. Mater Design, 216:110582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110582
15. Khodabandeh Z, Tanideh N, Aslani FS, et al., 2022, A comparative in vitro and in vivo study on bone tissue engineering potential of the collagen/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffolds loaded with ginger extract and curcumin. Mater Today Commun, 31:103339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103339
16. 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
17. Ali HU, Iqbal DN, Iqbal M, et al., 2022, HPMC crosslinked chitosan/hydroxyapatite scaffolds containing Lemongrass oil for potential bone tissue engineering applications. Arab J Chem, 15:103850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.103850
18. Adachi T, Boschetto F, Miyamoto N, et al., 2020, In vivo regeneration of large bone defects by cross-linked porous hydrogel: A pilot study in mice combining micro tomography, histological analyses, raman spectroscopy and synchrotron infrared imaging. Materials (Basel), 13:4275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13194275
19. Gremare A, Guduric V, Bareille R, et al., 2018, Characterization of printed PLA scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A, 106:887–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36289
20. Qu H, Fu H, Han Z, et al., 2019, Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: A review. RSC Adv, 9:26252–26262. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ra05214c
21. Safari B, Aghanejad A, Kadkhoda J, et al., 2022, Biofunctional phosphorylated magnetic scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Colloid Surf B, 211:112284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.112284
22. Asadniaye Fardjahromi M, Nazari H, Ahmadi Tafti SM, et al., 2022, Metal-organic framework-based nanomaterials for bone tissue engineering and wound healing. Mater Today Chem, 23:100670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtchem.2021.100670
23. Mi S, Hu X, Lin Z, et al., 2021, Shape memory PLLA-TMC/ CSH-dPA microsphere scaffolds with mechanical and bioactive enhancement for bone tissue engineering. Colloid Surf A, 622:126594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.126594
24. Xu HH, Wang P, Wang L, et al., 2017, Calcium phosphate cements for bone engineering and their biological properties. Bone Res, 5:17056. https://doi.org/10.1038/boneres.2017.56
25. Ng WL, Chua CK, Shen Y-F, 2019, Print me an organ! Why we are not there yet. Prog Polym Sci, 97:101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.101145
26. Vallet-Regı´ M, Salinas AJ, Roma´ NJ, et al., 1998, Effect of magnesium content on the in vitro bioactivity of CaO– MgO–SiO2–P2O5sol–gel glasses. J Mater Chem, 9:515–518.
27. Srinath P, Azeem PA, Reddy KV, 2020, Review on calcium silicate-based bioceramics in bone tissue engineering. Int J Appl Ceram Tec, 17:2450-2464. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJAC.13577
28. Akram N, Mohammad K, Moosa J, et al., 2022, Fabrication of functional and nano-biocomposite scaffolds using strontium-doped bredigite nanoparticles/polycaprolactone/ poly lactic acid via 3D printing for bone regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol, 219:1319-1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.08.136
29. Saberi A, Bakhsheshi-Rad HR, Karamian E, et al., 2020, A study on the corrosion behavior and biological properties of polycaprolactone/bredigite composite coating on biodegradable Mg-Zn-CaGNP nanocomposite. Prog Org Coat, 147:105822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.105822
30. Maconachie T, Leary M, Lozanovski B, et al., 2019, SLM lattice structures: Properties, performance, applications and challenges. Mater Design, 183:108137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108137
31. Yánez A, Cuadrado A, Martel O, et al., 2018, Gyroid porous titanium structures: A versatile solution to be used as scaffolds in bone defect reconstruction. Mater Design, 140:21-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.050
32. Ma S, Tang Q, Han X, et al., 2020, Manufacturability, mechanical properties, mass-transport properties and biocompatibility of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) porous scaffolds fabricated by selective laser melting. Mater Design, 195:109034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109034
33. Jadidi A, Salahinejad E, 2020, Mechanical strength and biocompatibility of bredigite (Ca7MgSi4O16) tissue-engineering scaffolds modified by aliphatic polyester coatings. Ceram Int, 46:16439-16446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.03.206
34. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, et al., 2018, Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng, 143:172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
35. Lin YH, Lee AK, Ho CC, et al., 2022, The effects of a 3D-printed magnesium-/strontium-doped calcium silicate scaffold on regulation of bone regeneration via dual-stimulation of the AKT and WNT signaling pathways. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 183:112660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2022.112660
36. Carluccio D, Demir AG, Bermingham MJ, et al., 2020, Challenges and opportunities in the selective laser melting of biodegradable metals for load-bearing bone scaffold applications. Metall Mater Trans A. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-020-05796-z
37. Tan C, Li S, Essa K, et al., 2019, Laser powder bed fusion of Ti-rich TiNi lattice structures: Process optimisation, geometrical integrity, and phase transformations. Int J Mach Tool Manuf, 141:19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.04.002
38. Ning LQ, Chen XB, 2017, A brief review of extrusion-based tissue scaffold bio-printing. Biotechnol J, 12: 1600671. https:// doi.org/: 10.1002/biot.201600671
39. Sarraf F, Hadian A, Churakov SV, et al., 2022, EVA-PVA binder system for polymer derived mullite made by material extrusion based additive manufacturing. J Eur Ceram Soc, 43:530-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2022.10.009
40. Zhang Y, Tse C, Rouholamin D, et al., 2012, Scaffolds for tissue engineering produced by inkjet printing. Cent Eur J Eng, 2:325–335. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13531-012-0016-2
41. Mora S, Pugno NM, Misseroni D, 2022, 3D printed architected lattice structures by material jetting. Mater Today Chem, 59:107-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2022.05.008
42. Ng WL, Lee JM, Zhou M, et al., 2019, Vat polymerization-based bioprinting—Process, materials, applications and regulatory challenges. Biofabrication, 2:022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab6034
43. Piedra-Cascón W, Krishnamurthy VR, Att W, et al., 2021, 3D printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing procedures of vat-polymerization additive manufacturing technologies: A narrative review. J Dent, 109:103630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103630
44. Shen Z, Yu T, Ye J, 2014, Microstructure and properties of alendronate-loaded calcium phosphate cement. Mat Sci Eng C Mater, 42:303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.05.043
45. Baino F, Yamaguchi S, 2020, The use of simulated body fluid (SBF) for assessing materials bioactivity in the context of tissue engineering: Review and challenges. Biomimetics (Basel), 5–57. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics5040057
46. Wu C, Chang J, Wang J, et al., 2005, Preparation and characteristics of a calcium magnesium silicate. Biomaterials, 26:2925–2931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.09.019
47. Eilbagi M, Emadi R, Raeissi K, et al., 2016, Mechanical and cytotoxicity evaluation of nanostructured hydroxyapatite-bredigite scaffolds for bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C, 68:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.06.030
48. Sopcak T, Shepa I, Csan´Adi T, et al., 2022, Influence of boron addition on the phase transformation, microstructure, mechanical and in-vitro cellular properties of bredigite-type coatings deposited by a spin coating technique. Mater Chem Phys, 283: 126049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126049