Preparation and characterization of PCL@β-TCP composite antibacterial scaffolds by additive manufacturing
Source abstract
Abstract
Poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) are promising materials for bone tissue engineering due to their complementary biodegradability and osteoconductivity. However, their individual limitations hinder clinical application. In this study, PCL@β-TCP composite scaffolds containing 5%, 10%, and 20% β-TCP were fabricated via fused deposition modeling (FDM). The effects of β-TCP content on the physicochemical, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of the scaffolds were systematically investigated. Results showed that increasing β-TCP content enhanced hydrophilicity (contact angle reduced from 89.1° to 66.9°), accelerated biodegradation (higher weight loss after 103 days in PBS), and improved antibacterial activity, as evidenced by larger inhibition zones against E. coli and S. aureus . These findings demonstrate that β-TCP incorporation effectively enhances the bioactivity and antibacterial performance of PCL scaffolds, highlighting their potential for bone tissue engineering applications, particularly in non-load-bearing contexts.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties · Calcium Carbonate Crystallization and Inhibition
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Materials and Chemistry Engineering, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, China
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun, China
School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
Funding
Fuzhou Overseas Chinese Talent Project · National Natural Science Foundation of China · Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province · Fujian Provincial Department of Science and technology joint innovation project
References (73)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.00710.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007 ↗
2. Wei S, Ma JX, Xu L, et al. Biodegradable materials for bone defect repair. Mil Med Res 2020; 7: 54.
3. 10.1007/s10856-014-5240-210.1007/s10856-014-5240-2 ↗
4. 10.1002/adfm.20201060910.1002/adfm.202010609 ↗
5. 10.3390/polym1007073210.3390/polym10070732 ↗
6. 10.1016/B978-0-12-805361-4.00002-310.1016/B978-0-12-805361-4.00002-3 ↗
7. 10.1021/acs.iecr.8b0533410.1021/acs.iecr.8b05334 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jgeb.2012.07.00210.1016/j.jgeb.2012.07.002 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.apmt.2019.06.01210.1016/j.apmt.2019.06.012 ↗
10. Yang Y, Song X, Li X, et al. Recent progress in biomimetic additive manufacturing technology: from materials to functional structures. Adv Mater 2018: e1706539.
11. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.01.00410.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.01.004 ↗
12. Leung Y-S, Kwok TH, Li X, et al. Challenges and status on design and computation for emerging additive manufacturing technologies. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 2018; 19: 32–45.
13. 10.1016/B978-0-08-100979-6.00001-X10.1016/B978-0-08-100979-6.00001-X ↗
14. 10.1007/s42242-019-00056-510.1007/s42242-019-00056-5 ↗
15. 10.1002/adma.20190199410.1002/adma.201901994 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.05110.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.051 ↗
17. 10.1007/s42242-020-00117-010.1007/s42242-020-00117-0 ↗
18. Temple JP, Hutton DL, Hung BP, et al. Engineering anatomically shaped vascularized bone grafts with hASCs and 3D-printed PCL scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A 2014; 102: 4317–4325.
19. 10.1088/1758-5090/ab5ae310.1088/1758-5090/ab5ae3 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.otsm.2020.15078010.1016/j.otsm.2020.150780 ↗
21. 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181cec4a110.1097/BOT.0b013e3181cec4a1 ↗
22. 10.1021/cr100123h10.1021/cr100123h ↗
23. 10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.03210.1016/j.procir.2017.04.032 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jma.2022.10.02510.1016/j.jma.2022.10.025 ↗
25. 10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y ↗
26. 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.00810.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.008 ↗
27. 10.1007/s40430-019-1625-y10.1007/s40430-019-1625-y ↗
28. 10.1021/acscentsci.8b0081210.1021/acscentsci.8b00812 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.10919710.1016/j.cclet.2023.109197 ↗
30. 10.1007/s12033-018-0084-510.1007/s12033-018-0084-5 ↗
31. 10.1021/acsami.4c0263610.1021/acsami.4c02636 ↗
32. 10.1007/s10853-024-09774-310.1007/s10853-024-09774-3 ↗
33. 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i3.65710.4252/wjsc.v7.i3.657 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.06.02210.1016/j.actbio.2020.06.022 ↗
35. 10.1002/smtd.20230128310.1002/smtd.202301283 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.00210.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.002 ↗
37. 10.3390/ijms24211587710.3390/ijms242115877 ↗
38. 10.3390/mi1103027310.3390/mi11030273 ↗
39. 10.1002/app.4303110.1002/app.43031 ↗
40. 10.1515/epoly-2022-000310.1515/epoly-2022-0003 ↗
41. 10.3390/ijms1805089910.3390/ijms18050899 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.identj.2024.02.01310.1016/j.identj.2024.02.013 ↗
43. 10.1116/1.487078110.1116/1.4870781 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2024.11304610.1016/j.eurpolymj.2024.113046 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.10041210.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100412 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.msec.2018.08.00910.1016/j.msec.2018.08.009 ↗
47. 10.3390/jfb1405025010.3390/jfb14050250 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.11052910.1016/j.msec.2019.110529 ↗
49. 10.1002/jbm.b.3470610.1002/jbm.b.34706 ↗
50. 10.1007/s10439-018-2101-z10.1007/s10439-018-2101-z ↗
51. 10.1166/jnn.2017.1371310.1166/jnn.2017.13713 ↗
52. 10.3390/polym1209196210.3390/polym12091962 ↗
53. 10.1002/jor.2454210.1002/jor.24542 ↗
54. 10.3390/mi1010065510.3390/mi10100655 ↗
55. 10.1088/1758-5090/ab078a10.1088/1758-5090/ab078a ↗
56. 10.1186/s12903-025-06110-210.1186/s12903-025-06110-2 ↗
57. 10.1038/s41598-020-63742-w10.1038/s41598-020-63742-w ↗
58. 10.3389/fbioe.2023.116850410.3389/fbioe.2023.1168504 ↗
59. 10.1186/s12951-024-02980-w10.1186/s12951-024-02980-w ↗
60. 10.3389/fendo.2022.88224110.3389/fendo.2022.882241 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.bone.2025.11741810.1016/j.bone.2025.117418 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.04310.1016/j.injury.2021.01.043 ↗
63. 10.3390/bioengineering1102018010.3390/bioengineering11020180 ↗
64. 10.1038/s41598-024-75198-310.1038/s41598-024-75198-3 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.05.48810.1016/j.ceramint.2024.05.488 ↗
66. Su J, Chen L, Li L. Characterization of polycaprolactone and starch blends for potential application within the biomaterials field. Afr J Biotechnol 2012; 11: 694–701.
67. 10.1016/j.morpho.2017.03.00210.1016/j.morpho.2017.03.002 ↗
68. 10.1111/j.1757-7861.2012.00189.x10.1111/j.1757-7861.2012.00189.x ↗
69. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.05.14210.1016/j.ceramint.2018.05.142 ↗
70. 10.1177/088532822097849210.1177/0885328220978492 ↗
71. 10.1039/D1RA02402G10.1039/D1RA02402G ↗
72. 10.3390/ijms2002044910.3390/ijms20020449 ↗
73. 10.1021/acsnano.0c1075610.1021/acsnano.0c10756 ↗