journal article·2023-10-01Open access

Three-Dimensional Printed Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes Designed by a Novel Periodic Minimal Surface Algorithm Are Highly Osteoconductive

Ekaterina Maevskaia, Nupur Khera, Chafik Ghayor, Indranil Bhattacharya, Julien Guerrero, Flora Nicholls, Christian Waldvogel, Ralph Bärtschi, Lea Fritschi, Dániel Salamon, Mutlu Özcan, Patrick Malgaroli, Daniel Seiler, Michael de Wild, Franz E. Weber

Abstract

Autologous bone remains the gold standard bone substitute in clinical practice. Therefore, the microarchitecture of newly developed synthetic bone substitutes, which reflects the spatial distribution of materials in the scaffold, aims to recapitulate the natural bone microarchitecture. However, the natural bone microarchitecture is optimized to obtain a mechanically stable, lightweight structure adapted to the biomechanical loading situation. In the context of synthetic bone substitutes, the application of a Triply Periodic Minimum Surface (TPMS) algorithm can yield stable lightweight microarchitectures that, despite their demanding architectural complexity, can be produced by additive manufacturing. In this study, we applied the TPMS derivative Adaptive Density Minimal Surfaces (ADMS) algorithm to produce scaffolds from hydroxyapatite (HA) using a lithography-based layer-by-layer methodology and compared them with an established highly osteoconductive lattice microarchitecture. We characterized them for compression strength, osteoconductivity, and bone regeneration. The in vivo results, based on a rabbit calvaria defect model, showed that bony ingrowth into ADMS constructs as a measure of osteoconduction depended on minimal constriction as it limited the maximum apparent pore diameter in these scaffolds to 1.53 mm. Osteoconduction decreased significantly at a diameter of 1.76 mm. The most suitable ADMS microarchitecture was as osteoconductive as a highly osteoconductive orthogonal lattice microarchitecture in noncritical- and critical-size calvarial defects. However, the compression strength and microarchitectural integrity in vivo were significantly higher for scaffolds with their microarchitecture based on the ADMS algorithm when compared with high-connectivity lattice microarchitectures. Therefore, bone substitutes with high osteoconductivity can be designed with the advantages of the ADMS-based microarchitectures. As TPMS and ADMS microarchitectures are true lightweight structures optimized for high mechanical stability with a minimal amount of material, such microarchitectures appear most suitable for bone substitutes used in clinical settings to treat bone defects in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing sites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Cellular and Composite Structures

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

Affiliations

Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Central Biological Laboratory, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Spherene, Zurich, Switzerland.

Center of Dental Medicine, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Institute for Medical Engineering and Medical Informatics IM2, School of Life Sciences, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, FHNW, Muttenz, Switzerland.

CABMM, Center for Applied Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

References (48)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1073/pnas.190581411610.1073/pnas.1905814116 ↗
2. Wolff J. The law of the transformation of bone. Hirschwald: Berlin; 1892.
3. 10.1097/00003086-199810001-0002710.1097/00003086-199810001-00027 ↗
4. Urist MR. Practical applications of basic research on bone graft physiology. AAOS Instruct Course Lect, 1976; 25:1–26.
5. 10.1089/ten.teb.2019.004710.1089/ten.teb.2019.0047 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)90247-710.1016/S0140-6736(99)90247-7 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.00210.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 ↗
8. Yang S, , Leong KF, , Du Z, et al. The design of scaffolds for use in tissue engineering. Part I. Traditional factors. Tissue Eng, 2001; 7(6):679–689.
9. 10.1002/jbm.b.3341910.1002/jbm.b.33419 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.08.00810.1016/j.actbio.2010.08.008 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-610.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6 ↗
12. 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2007.00078.x10.1111/j.1582-4934.2007.00078.x ↗
13. 10.1089/3dp.2015.000110.1089/3dp.2015.0001 ↗
14. Crump SS. Apparatus und method for creating tree-dimensional objects. Patent No. 5121329; 1992.
15. 10.1002/adem.20029000210.1002/adem.200290002 ↗
16. 10.1089/10763270232093418210.1089/107632702320934182 ↗
17. 10.1002/1097-4636(200105)55:2<203::AID-JBM1007>3.0.CO;2-710.1002/1097-4636(200105)55:2<203::AID-JBM1007>3.0.CO;2-7 ↗
18. Schantz JT, , Lim TC, , Ning C, et al. Cranioplasty after trephination using a novel biodegradable burr hole cover: Technical case report. Neurosurgery, 2006; 58(1 Suppl):ONS-E176; discussion ONS-E.
19. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.03.00910.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.03.009 ↗
20. 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61035-X10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61035-X ↗
21. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b0124110.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b01241 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.media.2006.06.00110.1016/j.media.2006.06.001 ↗
23. 10.1038/s41598-018-25750-910.1038/s41598-018-25750-9 ↗
24. Schwarz HA. Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen Vol. 1 & 2. Springer: Berlin;. 1890.10.1007/978-3-642-50665-9_1 ↗
25. Schoen AH. Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without selfintersections. NASA: Washington, DC; 1970, Contract No.: Technical report TN D-5541.
26. 10.1126/science.166.3909.114710.1126/science.166.3909.1147 ↗
27. 10.1007/BF0124813310.1007/BF01248133 ↗
28. 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12102.x10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12102.x ↗
29. 10.1055/s-0037-160284910.1055/s-0037-1602849 ↗
30. 10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00672-X10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00672-X ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.00510.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.005 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.03.01610.1016/j.actbio.2020.03.016 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10860210.1016/j.matdes.2020.108602 ↗
34. 10.1021/acsabm.8b0005210.1021/acsabm.8b00052 ↗
35. 10.1038/srep3407210.1038/srep34072 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.11007410.1016/j.matdes.2021.110074 ↗
37. 10.1089/3dp.2017.012910.1089/3dp.2017.0129 ↗
38. 10.3390/ma1504143310.3390/ma15041433 ↗
39. 10.1089/ten.tea.2012.075310.1089/ten.tea.2012.0753 ↗
40. 10.1089/ten.tea.2018.001410.1089/ten.tea.2018.0014 ↗
41. 10.3389/fphys.2018.0096010.3389/fphys.2018.00960 ↗
42. Li L, , Shi J, , Zhang K, et al. Early osteointegration evaluation of porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds designed based on triply periodic minimal surface models. J Orthop Transl, 2019; 19:94–105.
43. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.05110.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.051 ↗
44. 10.1177/0954411921102806110.1177/09544119211028061 ↗
45. Alam A, , Berube K, , Rais-Rohani M, et al. Mechanical performance of three-dimensional printed lattice structures: Assembled versus direct print. 3D Print Addit Manuf, 2022. http://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2021.0207
46. 10.1016/j.eml.2020.10067110.1016/j.eml.2020.100671 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.10488210.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104882 ↗
48. 10.1017/CBO978113987832610.1017/CBO9781139878326 ↗