journal article·2023-06-14Open access

In Vivo Bone Regeneration Capacity of Multiscale Porous Polycaprolactone-Based High Internal Phase Emulsion (PolyHIPE) Scaffolds in a Rat Calvarial Defect Model

Betül Aldemir Dikici, Min-Chia Chen, Serkan Dikici, Hsien-Chung Chiu, Frederik Claeyssens

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 15· Issue 23

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Globally, one of the most common tissue transplantation procedures is bone grafting. Lately, we have reported the development of polymerized high internal phase emulsions (PolyHIPEs) made of photocurable polycaprolactone (4PCLMA) and shown their potential to be used as bone tissue engineering scaffolds in vitro . However, it is essential to evaluate the in vivo performance of these scaffolds to investigate their potential in a clinically more relevant manner. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare in vivo performances of macroporous (fabricated using stereolithography), microporous (fabricated using emulsion templating), and multiscale porous (fabricated using emulsion templating and perforation) scaffolds made of 4PCLMA. Also, 3D-printed macroporous scaffolds (fabricated using fused deposition modeling) made of thermoplastic polycaprolactone were used as a control. Scaffolds were implanted into a critical-sized calvarial defect, animals were sacrificed 4 or 8 weeks after implantation, and the new bone formation was assessed by micro-computed tomography, dental radiography, and histology. Multiscale porous scaffolds that include both micro- and macropores resulted in higher bone regeneration in the defect area compared to only macroporous or only microporous scaffolds. When one-grade porous scaffolds were compared, microporous scaffolds showed better performance than macroporous scaffolds in terms of mineralized bone volume and tissue regeneration. Micro-CT results revealed that while bone volume/tissue volume (Bv/Tv) values were 8 and 17% at weeks 4 and 8 for macroporous scaffolds, they were significantly higher for microporous scaffolds, with values of 26 and 33%, respectively. Taken together, the results reported in this study showed the potential application of multiscale PolyHIPE scaffolds, in particular, as a promising material for bone regeneration.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Pickering emulsions and particle stabilization · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Pharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Bioengineering, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Izmir 35433, Turkey

Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, National Defense Medical Center and Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei 114, Taiwan, ROC

Private Dental Clinic of New Taipei City, Taipei 220, Taiwan, ROC

Kroto Research Institute, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S37HQ, United Kingdom

INSIGNEO Institute for In Silico Medicine, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S13JD, United Kingdom

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council · Royal Society · Medical Research Council · Leverhulme Trust · Medical Affairs Bureau · Tri-Service General Hospital · Izmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü · Türkiye Saglik Enstitüleri Baskanligi · National Science and Technology Council

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1021/acsami.9b2310010.1021/acsami.9b23100 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.12710.1016/j.msec.2019.01.127 ↗
3. 10.1002/term.177510.1002/term.1775 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.01710.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017 ↗
5. 10.1002/jbm.a.3501010.1002/jbm.a.35010 ↗
6. 10.18063/ijb.v6i2.26510.18063/ijb.v6i2.265 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.msec.2018.11.08810.1016/j.msec.2018.11.088 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.06.02910.1016/j.compositesb.2018.06.029 ↗
9. 10.3389/fbioe.2020.0087510.3389/fbioe.2020.00875 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.06.06110.1016/j.matdes.2018.06.061 ↗
11. 10.18063/IJB.2016.02.00510.18063/IJB.2016.02.005 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jcis.2016.03.01210.1016/j.jcis.2016.03.012 ↗
13. 10.3390/polym1204097110.3390/polym12040971 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.04.00210.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.04.002 ↗
15. 10.1021/bm700723510.1021/bm7007235 ↗
16. 10.1021/bm200883910.1021/bm2008839 ↗
17. 10.1089/ten.tea.2013.031910.1089/ten.tea.2013.0319 ↗
18. 10.1021/bm500754r10.1021/bm500754r ↗
19. 10.1039/c0py00374c10.1039/c0py00374c ↗
20. 10.1039/c2sm26250a10.1039/c2sm26250a ↗
21. 10.1039/c5py00721f10.1039/c5py00721f ↗
22. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b0066310.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00663 ↗
23. 10.1021/bm000088910.1021/bm0000889 ↗
24. 10.1021/ma702717710.1021/ma7027177 ↗
25. 10.1002/pola.2374410.1002/pola.23744 ↗
26. 10.1021/ma802461m10.1021/ma802461m ↗
27. 10.1002/pola.2362410.1002/pola.23624 ↗
28. 10.1155/2015/28379610.1155/2015/283796 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.polymer.2019.05.02310.1016/j.polymer.2019.05.023 ↗
30. 10.3390/ma1216264310.3390/ma12162643 ↗
31. 10.1039/D1BM01262B10.1039/D1BM01262B ↗
32. 10.1021/acs.biomac.1c0112910.1021/acs.biomac.1c01129 ↗
33. 10.35378/gujs.104027710.35378/gujs.1040277 ↗
34. 10.3389/fbioe.2019.0045110.3389/fbioe.2019.00451 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.09.02710.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.09.027 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.08610.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.086 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.04010.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.040 ↗
38. 10.1089/ten.tea.2015.037010.1089/ten.tea.2015.0370 ↗
39. 10.3390/ma1007083110.3390/ma10070831 ↗
40. 10.3390/ma1102023810.3390/ma11020238 ↗
41. 10.1155/2020/208747510.1155/2020/2087475 ↗
42. 10.1089/1076327036069703010.1089/10763270360697030 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.jds.2021.01.01510.1016/j.jds.2021.01.015 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2022.10538710.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2022.105387 ↗
45. 10.18063/ijb.v4i1.12310.18063/ijb.v4i1.123 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.05510.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.055 ↗
47. 10.1002/adma.20130055210.1002/adma.201300552 ↗
48. 10.1002/jbm.b.3304910.1002/jbm.b.33049 ↗
49. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.2c0124310.1021/acs.langmuir.2c01243 ↗
50. 10.1021/ma035943610.1021/ma0359436 ↗
51. 10.3791/170710.3791/1707 ↗
52. 10.1002/jbm.b.3369910.1002/jbm.b.33699 ↗
53. 10.1021/acs.biomac.8b0078410.1021/acs.biomac.8b00784 ↗
54. 10.1007/s10934-016-0311-z10.1007/s10934-016-0311-z ↗
55. 10.1039/c6py01725h10.1039/c6py01725h ↗
56. 10.1088/1748-6041/10/3/03500110.1088/1748-6041/10/3/035001 ↗
57. 10.22203/eCM.v028a2110.22203/eCM.v028a21 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.05210.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.052 ↗
59. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b0063210.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00632 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.08.02110.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.08.021 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.00210.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 ↗
62. 10.1021/acsami.9b0546010.1021/acsami.9b05460 ↗
63. 10.1002/mabi.20170030610.1002/mabi.201700306 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.09.01910.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.09.019 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.04.08710.1016/j.msec.2016.04.087 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.09.05610.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.09.056 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.apmt.2020.10070610.1016/j.apmt.2020.100706 ↗