journal article·2025-07

Developing a pure silica ink for 3D printing through sol-gel reaction and mild conditions

Raquel Rodríguez-González, Luis M. Delgado, Román A. Pérez

Publisher page

Abstract

Silica 3D printable materials are interesting in bone tissue engineering as they allow the development of custom-made scaffolds with high bioactivity and osteogenic properties. However, all pure silica scaffolds nowadays require using a sintering step, which reduces the specific surface and porosity of the scaffolds, while limiting their biological activity and drug encapsulation. In this study, we developed a pure silica 3D printable material using mild temperatures (50-70 & DEG;C) through the sol-gel reaction of tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS). The pure silica ink had a printing window of several hours and could be stored without a substantial loss of printability. Moreover, the inks showed a high shape fidelity and a proportionate contraction, without losing the printed shape. The scaffolds also maintained high bioactivity and biocompatibility, proving that the sol-gel reaction and printing parameters did not negatively affect those properties. Therefore, pure silica could be 3D printed showing potential for their use in bone regeneration. Sol-gel pure silica materials could be 3D printed to obtain scaffolds.The nature of the reaction and the discovered parameters allow a long printing window, of up to 36 h.This sol-gel pure silica ink can be stored at -20 & DEG;C for a month without losing printability and printing window.These sol-gel pure silica 3D printed scaffolds maintained the bioactivity and biocompatibility seen in other silica-based materials.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Calcium Carbonate Crystallization and Inhibition · Dental materials and restorations

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

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. Vallet-Regí M, Salinas AJ. Sol-Gel Silica-Based Biomaterials and Bone Tissue Regeneration. In: Handbook of Sol-Gel Science and Technology [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 3597–3618. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32101-1_15210.1007/978-3-319-32101-1_152 ↗
2. Al-Harbi N, Mohammed H, Al-Hadeethi Y, Bakry AS, Umar A, Hussein MA et al. (2021) Silica-based bioactive glasses and their applications in hard tissue regeneration: a review. Pharmaceuticals. 14(Jan 2):7510.3390/ph14020075 ↗
3. Eivazzadeh-Keihan R, Chenab KK, Taheri-Ledari R, Mosafer J, Hashemi SM, Mokhtarzadeh A et al. (2020) Recent advances in the application of mesoporous silica-based nanomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C [Internet]. 107(Feb):110267, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092849311932503210.1016/j.msec.2019.110267 ↗
4. Yazdanpanah Z, Johnston JD, Cooper DML, Chen X 3D Bioprinted scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state-of-the-art and emerging technologies. Front Bioeng Biotechnol [Internet]. 2022 Apr;10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.824156/full10.3389/fbioe.2022.824156 ↗
5. Wang C, Huang W, Zhou Y, He L, He Z, Chen Z et al. (2020) 3D printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Bioact Mater 5(Mar 1):82–91
6. Thavornyutikarn B, Tesavibul P, Sitthiseripratip K, Chatarapanich N, Feltis B, Wright PFA et al. (2017) Porous 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds using stereolithography: Effect of partial pre-sintering on structural and mechanical properties of scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 75(Jun):1281–128810.1016/j.msec.2017.03.001 ↗
7. Barberi J, Baino F, Fiume E, Orlygsson G, Nommeots-Nomm A, Massera J et al. (2019) Robocasting of SiO2-based bioactive glass scaffolds with porosity gradient for bone regeneration and potential load-bearing applications. Materials (Basel) 12(Aug 17):269110.3390/ma12172691 ↗
8. Li L, Hu H, Zhu Y, Zhu M, Liu Z (2019) 3D-printed ternary SiO2CaO P2O5 bioglass-ceramic scaffolds with tunable compositions and properties for bone regeneration. Ceram Int 45(Jun 8):10997–1100510.1016/j.ceramint.2019.02.183 ↗
9. Rosado E, Moreno R (2023) Mullite-silica scaffolds obtained by stereolithography and reaction sintering. Open Ceram [Internet]. 14(Jun):100361, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S266653952300033010.1016/j.oceram.2023.100361 ↗
10. Chen B, Wang B, Zhang WJ, Zhou G, Cao Y, Liu W (2013) Macromolecular crowding effect on cartilaginous matrix production: a comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional models. Tissue Eng Part C Methods [Internet]. 19(8):586–595. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2342145010.1089/ten.tec.2012.0408 ↗
11. Kamboj N, Kazantseva J, Rahmani R, Rodríguez MA, Hussainova I (2020) Selective laser sintered bio-inspired silicon-wollastonite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C [Internet]. 116(Nov):111223, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092849312031721510.1016/j.msec.2020.111223 ↗
12. Kim HS, Kumbar SG, Nukavarapu SP (2023) Amorphous silica fiber matrix biomaterials: An analysis of material synthesis and characterization for tissue engineering. Bioact Mater [Internet] 19(Jan):155–166. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2452199X2200161X10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.04.002 ↗
13. Goldschmidt GP, de Moraes EG, Novaes de Oliveira AP, Hotza D (2022) Production and characterization of 3D-printed silica-based cellular structures. Open Ceram [Internet]. 9(Mar):100225, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S266653952200008610.1016/j.oceram.2022.100225 ↗
14. Jorge LS, Chueire AG, Fucuta PS, Machado MN, Oliveira MGL, Nakazone MA et al. (2017) Predisposing factors for recurrence of chronic posttraumatic osteomyelitis: A retrospective observational cohort study from a tertiary referral center in Brazil. Patient Saf Surg 11(1):1–910.1186/s13037-017-0133-1 ↗
15. Oliveira RLMS, Alves APN, Barbosa L, Silva AP, de Cena GL, Conceição K et al. (2022) 3D printing of bioactive glass S53P4/sodium alginate sintering-free scaffolds. Bioprinting [Internet] 27(Aug):e00226, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S240588662200036710.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00226 ↗
16. Shukrun E, Cooperstein I, Magdassi S (2018) 3D-Printed organic-ceramic complex hybrid structures with high silica content. Adv Sci 5(Aug 8):180006110.1002/advs.201800061 ↗
17. Chiappone A, Fantino E, Roppolo I, Lorusso M, Manfredi D, Fino P et al. (2016) 3D printed PEG-based hybrid nanocomposites obtained by Sol–Gel technique. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8(Mar 8):5627–563310.1021/acsami.5b12578 ↗
18. Tallia F, Russo L, Li S, Orrin ALH, Shi X, Chen S, et al. Bouncing and 3D printable hybrids with self-healing properties. Mater Horizons [Internet]. 2018;5(5):849–860. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b1257810.1021/acsami.5b12578 ↗
19. Nelson M, Li S, Page SJ, Shi X, Lee PD, Stevens MM et al. (2021) 3D printed silica-gelatin hybrid scaffolds of specific channel sizes promote collagen Type II, Sox9 and Aggrecan production from chondrocytes. Mater Sci Eng C [Internet]. 123(Apr):111964, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092849312100103X10.1016/j.msec.2021.111964 ↗
20. Habib A, Sathish V, Mallik S, Khoda B (2018) 3D printability of alginate-carboxymethyl cellulose hydrogel. Materials (Basel) 11(Mar 3):45410.3390/ma11030454 ↗
21. Kokubo T, Takadama H (2006) How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials. 27(May 15):2907–291510.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.017 ↗
22. Wu R, Li Y, Shen M, Yang X, Zhang L, Ke X et al. (2021) Bone tissue regeneration: the role of finely tuned pore architecture of bioactive scaffolds before clinical translation. Bioact Mater [Internet] 6(May 5):1242–1254. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2452199X2030291710.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.11.003 ↗
23. Levato R, Visser J, Planell JA, Engel E, Malda J, Mateos-Timoneda MA (2014) Biofabrication of tissue constructs by 3D bioprinting of cell-laden microcarriers. Biofabrication [Internet] 6(Jul 3):035020, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1758-5082/6/3/03502010.1088/1758-5082/6/3/035020 ↗
24. Olate-Moya F, Arens L, Wilhelm M, Mateos-Timoneda MA, Engel E, Palza H (2020) Chondroinductive alginate-based hydrogels having graphene oxide for 3D printed Scaffold fabrication. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces [Internet] 12(Jan 4):4343–4357. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b22062.10.1021/acsami.9b22062 ↗
25. Kim Y, Lim JY, Yang GH, Seo J-H, Ryu H-S, Kim G (2019) 3D-printed PCL/bioglass (BGS-7) composite scaffolds with high toughness and cell-responses for bone tissue regeneration. J Ind Eng Chem 79(Nov):163–17110.1016/j.jiec.2019.06.027 ↗
26. Kolan KCR, Leu MC, Hilmas GE, Brown RF, Velez M (2011) Fabrication of 13-93 bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering using indirect selective laser sintering. Biofabrication. 3(Jun 2):02500410.1088/1758-5082/3/2/025004 ↗
27. Kolan KCR, Leu MC, Hilmas GE, Velez M (2012) Effect of material, process parameters, and simulated body fluids on mechanical properties of 13-93 bioactive glass porous constructs made by selective laser sintering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 13(Sep):14–2410.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.04.001 ↗
28. Schmidt J, Colombo P (2018) Digital light processing of ceramic components from polysiloxanes. J Eur Ceram Soc 38(Jan 1):57–6610.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2017.07.033 ↗
29. Perez RA, El-Fiqi A, Park J-H, Kim T-H, Kim J-H, Kim H-W (2014) Therapeutic bioactive microcarriers: co-delivery of growth factors and stem cells for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 10(Jan 1):520–53010.1016/j.actbio.2013.09.042 ↗
30. Schneider P (1995) Adsorption isotherms of microporous-mesoporous solids revisited. Appl Catal A Gen 129(Aug 2):157–16510.1016/0926-860X(95)00110-7 ↗
31. Wang J, Guo X (2020) Adsorption isotherm models: classification, physical meaning, application and solving method. Chemosphere [Internet] 258(Nov):127279, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004565352031472710.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127279 ↗
32. Bigham A, Hassanzadeh-Tabrizi SA, Rafienia M, Salehi H (2016) Ordered mesoporous magnesium silicate with uniform nanochannels as a drug delivery system: The effect of calcination temperature on drug delivery rate. Ceram Int 42(Nov 15):17185–1719110.1016/j.ceramint.2016.08.009 ↗
33. Kierys A, Zaleski R, Grochowicz M, Gorgol M, Sienkiewicz A (2020) Polymer–mesoporous silica composites for drug release systems. Microporous Mesoporous Mater [Internet] 294(Mar):109881, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S138718111930740110.1016/j.micromeso.2019.109881 ↗
34. Zhou Y, Quan G, Wu Q, Zhang X, Niu B, Wu B et al. (2018) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery. Acta Pharm Sin B [Internet] 8(Mar 2):165–177. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S221138351730492610.1016/j.apsb.2018.01.007 ↗
35. M Vallet-Regi Bio‐Ceramics with Clinical Applications. Vallet‐Regí M, editor. Wiley; 2014.10.1002/9781118406748 ↗
36. Owens GJ, Singh RK, Foroutan F, Alqaysi M, Han C-M, Mahapatra C et al. (2016) Sol–gel based materials for biomedical applications. Prog Mater Sci 77:1–7910.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.12.001 ↗
37. Oyane A, Nakanishi K, Kim H-M, Miyaji F, Kokubo T, Soga N et al. (1999) Sol–gel modification of silicone to induce apatite-forming ability. Biomaterials. 20(Jan 1):79–8410.1016/S0142-9612(98)00146-X ↗
38. Nitu, Fopase R, Pandey LM, Seal P, Borah JP, Srinivasan A (2023) Assessment of sol–gel derived iron oxide substituted 45S5 bioglass-ceramics for biomedical applications. J Mater Chem B [Internet] 11:7502–7513. http://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D3TB00287J10.1039/D3TB00287J ↗