journal article·2022-07

Promotion of dermal tissue engineering in a rat model using a composite 3D-printed scaffold with electrospun nanofibers and recipient-site preconditioning with an external volume expansion device

Hae Woon Choi, Jamin Hong, Junhyung Kim, Woonhyeok Jeong, Taehee Jo, Hyoun Wook Lee, Sang Woo Park, Jaehoon Choi

Publisher page

Abstract

We hypothesized that use of a composite three-dimensionally (3D) printed scaffold with electrospun nanofibers in conjunction with recipient-site preconditioning with an external volume expansion (EVE) device would enable successful dermal tissue regeneration of a synthetic polymer scaffold. Cell viability, cell infiltration, extracellular matrix deposition, scaffold contraction, and mRNA expression by dermal fibroblasts cultured on three different scaffolds, namely, 3D-printed scaffold with a collagen coating, 3D-printed scaffold with an electrospun polycaprolactone nanofiber and collagen coating, and 3D-printed scaffold with an electrospun polycaprolactone/collagen nanofiber, were measured. Before scaffold implantation, rats were treated for 2 h with an EVE device to evaluate the effect of this device on the recipient site. Cell proliferation rates were significantly higher on the 3D-printed scaffold with electrospun polycaprolactone nanofiber and collagen coating than on the other scaffolds. In cell invasion studies, the 3D-printed scaffold with electrospun polycaprolactone nanofiber and collagen coating showed better cell integration than the other scaffolds. Under stereomicroscopy, fibroblasts adhered tightly to the electrospun area, and the fibroblasts effectively produced both collagen and elastin. Rat skin treated with an EVE device exhibited increased HIF-1α protein expression and capillary neoformation compared with control skin. Invasion of CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocytes surrounding the scaffold decreased when the recipient site was preconditioned with the EVE device. The composite 3D printed scaffold with electrospun nanofibers provided a favorable environment for proliferation, migration, and extracellular matrix synthesis by fibroblasts. Recipient-site preconditioning with an EVE device allowed for scaffold incorporation with less inflammation due to improved angiogenesis.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Wound Healing and Treatments · Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

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

Affiliations

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keimyung University School of Medicine, South Korea

Department of Pathology, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, South Korea

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, South Korea

*Sang Woo Park and Jaehoon Choi contributed equally to this paper as corresponding authors.

Funding

Korea Nation Research Foundation

References (31)

Show source-provided references
1. Calota DR, Nitescu C, Florescu IP, et al. Surgical management of extensive burns treatment using allografts. J Med Life 2012; 5: 486–490.
2. 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.6.040803.14003710.1146/annurev.bioeng.6.040803.140037 ↗
3. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2008.00392.x10.1111/j.1524-475X.2008.00392.x ↗
4. 10.1679/aohc.65.10910.1679/aohc.65.109 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.01.00410.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.01.004 ↗
6. 10.1089/ten.2006.030610.1089/ten.2006.0306 ↗
7. 10.1021/bm060680j10.1021/bm060680j ↗
8. 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.06.00810.1016/j.actbio.2008.06.008 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.10.05610.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.10.056 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.02.03610.1016/j.actbio.2011.02.036 ↗
11. 10.1089/ten.teb.2011.039010.1089/ten.teb.2011.0390 ↗
12. 10.1002/bit.2291410.1002/bit.22914 ↗
13. 10.1371/journal.pone.012235910.1371/journal.pone.0122359 ↗
14. 10.1088/2057-1976/aa630810.1088/2057-1976/aa6308 ↗
15. 10.1080/19336918.2017.138571310.1080/19336918.2017.1385713 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.03.02710.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.03.027 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.trsl.2013.11.00310.1016/j.trsl.2013.11.003 ↗
18. Clark R. Wound repair: overview and general considerations. In: Clark R (ed). The molecular and cellular biology of wound repair. New York: Plenum Press; 1996, 3–50.
19. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.05.05710.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.05.057 ↗
20. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829ace3010.1097/PRS.0b013e31829ace30 ↗
21. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc04d10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc04d ↗
22. 10.1097/00006534-200006000-0003210.1097/00006534-200006000-00032 ↗
23. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182050a6410.1097/PRS.0b013e3182050a64 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.cps.2008.11.00910.1016/j.cps.2008.11.009 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.03210.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.032 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.06510.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.065 ↗
27. Busuioc CJ, Popescu FC, Mogoşanu GD, et al. Angiogenesis assessment in experimental third degree skin burns: a histological and immunohistochemical study. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2011; 52: 887–895.
28. 10.1097/PRS.000000000000603610.1097/PRS.0000000000006036 ↗
29. 10.5999/aps.2019.0062610.5999/aps.2019.00626 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.addr.2017.07.00610.1016/j.addr.2017.07.006 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.05510.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.055 ↗