journal article·2024-04-01Open access

In Vitro Evaluation of Pore Size Graded Bone Scaffolds with Different Material Composition

Evangelos Daskalakis, Boyang Huang, Mohamed H. Hassan, Abdalla M. Omar, Cian Vyas, Anil A. Acar, Ali Fallah, Glen Cooper, Andrew Weightman, Gordon Blunn, Bahattin Koç, Paulo Bartolo

Abstract

The demand for biomimetic and biocompatible scaffolds in equivalence of structure and material composition for the regeneration of bone tissue is relevantly high. This article is investigating a novel three-dimensional (3D) printed porous structure called bone bricks with a gradient pore size mimicking the structure of the bone tissue. Poly-ɛ-caprolactone (PCL) combined with ceramics such as hydroxyapatite (HA), β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP), and bioglass 45S5 were successfully mixed using a melt blending method and fabricated with the use of screw-assisted extrusion-based additive manufacturing system. Bone bricks containing the same material concentration (20 wt%) were biologically characterized through proliferation and differentiation tests. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to investigate the morphology of cells on the surface of bone bricks, whereas energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy was used to investigate the element composition on the surface of the bone bricks. Confocal imaging was used to investigate the number of differentiated cells on the surface of bone bricks. Proliferation results showed that bone bricks containing PCL/HA content are presenting higher proliferation properties, whereas differentiation results showed that bone bricks containing PCL/Bioglass 45S5 are presenting higher differentiation properties. Confocal imaging results showed that bone bricks containing PCL/Bioglass 45S5 are presenting a higher number of differentiated cells on their surface compared with the other material contents.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research

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

Affiliations

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Singapore Centre for 3D Printing, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.

Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Research and Application Center, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey.

SUNUM Nanotechnology Research Center, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey.

School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

References (77)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/10255842.2020.183662310.1080/10255842.2020.1836623 ↗
2. 10.3390/app1112547910.3390/app11125479 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cobme.2020.10024810.1016/j.cobme.2020.100248 ↗
4. 10.1038/s41408-021-00459-710.1038/s41408-021-00459-7 ↗
5. 10.1056/NEJMc203016410.1056/NEJMc2030164 ↗
6. 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.039410.1089/ten.tea.2008.0394 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11152510.1016/j.msec.2020.111525 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11192710.1016/j.msec.2021.111927 ↗
9. 10.1002/adma.20210588310.1002/adma.202105883 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11196310.1016/j.msec.2021.111963 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.eng.2020.05.02110.1016/j.eng.2020.05.021 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11216010.1016/j.msec.2021.112160 ↗
13. 10.1007/s11892-021-01378-410.1007/s11892-021-01378-4 ↗
14. 10.1186/s12967-021-02863-w10.1186/s12967-021-02863-w ↗
15. 10.3390/cancers1403064510.3390/cancers14030645 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.21510.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.215 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.11702310.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117023 ↗
18. 10.1021/acsomega.0c0559610.1021/acsomega.0c05596 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11133410.1016/j.msec.2020.111334 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11776510.1016/j.carbpol.2021.117765 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.msec.2018.10.08610.1016/j.msec.2018.10.086 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.06.02910.1016/j.compositesb.2018.06.029 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.01710.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.017 ↗
24. 10.3390/polym1401009610.3390/polym14010096 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.10245510.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.102455 ↗
26. 10.1080/00914037.2018.145222510.1080/00914037.2018.1452225 ↗
27. 10.1038/s41598-018-23378-310.1038/s41598-018-23378-3 ↗
28. 10.3390/pr803035410.3390/pr8030354 ↗
29. 10.1016/B978-0-08-100979-6.00006-910.1016/B978-0-08-100979-6.00006-9 ↗
30. 10.1038/s41598-020-60752-610.1038/s41598-020-60752-6 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11195010.1016/j.msec.2021.111950 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e0019110.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00191 ↗
33. 10.1007/s00170-021-06773-510.1007/s00170-021-06773-5 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11230010.1016/j.msec.2021.112300 ↗
35. 10.1002/pat.168010.1002/pat.1680 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.04.01710.1016/j.actbio.2019.04.017 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.10216510.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102165 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11170610.1016/j.msec.2020.111706 ↗
39. Nosouhian S, , Razavi S, , Rismanchian M, et al. Comparing the efficacy of three different nano-scale bone substitutes: In vivo study. Adv Biomed Res, 2017; 6(1):64; doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.192627
40. 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.11.01210.1016/j.actbio.2015.11.012 ↗
41. 10.3390/polym1302025710.3390/polym13020257 ↗
42. 10.3390/polym1401006510.3390/polym14010065 ↗
43. 10.3390/biomimetics701001910.3390/biomimetics7010019 ↗
44. 10.1002/jbm.b.3476110.1002/jbm.b.34761 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.11015010.1016/j.matdes.2021.110150 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.10968610.1016/j.matdes.2021.109686 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.16310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.163 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.mtchem.2021.10042210.1016/j.mtchem.2021.100422 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.irbm.2020.05.00710.1016/j.irbm.2020.05.007 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.addma.2020.10145210.1016/j.addma.2020.101452 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11143310.1016/j.msec.2020.111433 ↗
52. 10.18063/ijb.v7i2.26810.18063/ijb.v7i2.268 ↗
53. 10.3390/polym1403044510.3390/polym14030445 ↗
54. 10.1021/acsomega.1c0543710.1021/acsomega.1c05437 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.11037410.1016/j.msec.2019.110374 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11158810.1016/j.msec.2020.111588 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11163910.1016/j.msec.2020.111639 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.mseb.2020.11495010.1016/j.mseb.2020.114950 ↗
59. 10.1080/10667857.2019.156836810.1080/10667857.2019.1568368 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.00110.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.001 ↗
61. 10.1371/journal.pone.008587110.1371/journal.pone.0085871 ↗
62. 10.1021/am200993q10.1021/am200993q ↗
63. 10.1002/jbm.a.3153810.1002/jbm.a.31538 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.00310.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.003 ↗
65. 10.1002/jbm.a.1039910.1002/jbm.a.10399 ↗
66. 10.1002/jbm.b.3335010.1002/jbm.b.33350 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.01.27410.1016/j.ceramint.2021.01.274 ↗
68. 10.1088/1758-5082/5/4/04500510.1088/1758-5082/5/4/045005 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.msec.2011.04.02210.1016/j.msec.2011.04.022 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.11310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.113 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.09310.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.093 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.polymer.2018.03.04510.1016/j.polymer.2018.03.045 ↗
73. 10.1096/fasebj.4.13.221015710.1096/fasebj.4.13.2210157 ↗
74. 10.1016/j.micromeso.2021.11108310.1016/j.micromeso.2021.111083 ↗
75. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.11207510.1016/j.msec.2021.112075 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.12789510.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.127895 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.11228410.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.112284 ↗