No abstract

Hemoderivatives have utilized in an empirical manner, driven by clinical considerations, leading to the development of a plethora of manufacturing protocols. The purpose of this study was to investigate the composition and bioactivity of four common clinical-grade hemoderivates prepared using standardised methods. Four different hemoderivatives were obtained from sheep blood and divided into two groups: A-PRF/i-PRF (fresh) and P-PRP/L-PRP (anticoagulated). Thrombus (CLOT) was used as a control. Thrombocyte quantification, growth factor composition (IGF-I, VEGF, PDGF-BB, BMP-2), cell viability, migration and mineralization assay were evaluated. Platelet recovery was superior for L-PRP followed by P-PRP. A significant cumulative release of IGF-I and PDGF-BB was noted for A-PRF and L-PRP groups at early time points. Similar release profiles of BMP-2 and VEGF were noted in all protocols. Cell viability and migration assay have demonstrated a detrimental effect when the concentration was ≥60%. Moreover, at Day 21, i-PRF have demonstrated superior mineralisation properties when compared to all groups. A negative impact of A-PRF was demonstrated at high concentrations. Despite its low content in growth factors, i-PRF was the best performing blood product for inducing osteoblast mineralisation, and therefore could be the candidate of choice for utilisation in bone tissue engineering applications.

No abstract

No abstract

In tissue engineering, the relationship between a biomaterial surface and the host’s immune response during wound healing is crucial for tissue regeneration. Despite hemoderivative functionalization of biomaterials becoming a common tissue-engineering strategy for enhanced regeneration, the characteristics of the protein–biomaterial interface have not been fully elucidated. This study characterized the interface formed by the adsorbed proteins from various hemoderivatives with pristine and calcium phosphate (CaP)-coated polycaprolactone (PCL) melt electrowritten scaffolds. PCL scaffolds were fabricated by using melt electrospinning writing (MEW). Three hemoderivatives (pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP), leucocyte platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP) and injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF)) and total blood PLASMA (control) were prepared from ovine blood. Hemoderivatives were characterized via SEM/EDX, cross-linking assay, weight loss, pH and protein quantification. The interface between PCL/CaP and hemoderivative was examined via FTIR, XPS and electrophoresis. i-PRF/PCL-CaP (1653 cm−1), PLASMA/PCL-CaP (1652 cm−1) and i-PRF/PCL (1651 cm−1) demonstrated a strong signal at the Amide I region. PLASMA and i-PRF presented similar N1s spectra, with most of the nitrogen involved in N-C=O bonds (≈400 eV). i-PRF resulted in higher adsorption of low molecular weight (LMW) proteins at 60 min, while PLASMA exhibited the lowest adsorption. L-PRP and P-PRP had a similar pattern of protein adsorption. The characteristics of biomaterial interfaces can be customized, thus creating a specific hemoderivative-defined layer on the PCL surface. i-PRF demonstrated a predominant adsorption of LMW proteins. Further investigation of hemoderivative functionalized biomaterials is required to identify the differential protein corona composition, and the resultant immune response and regenerative capacity.

This study aims to carry out a risk assessment to identify and rectify potential clinical risks of a 3D-printed patient-specific scaffold for large-volume alveolar bone regeneration. A survey was used to assess clinicians’ perceptions regarding the use of scaffolds in the treatment of alveolar defects and conduct a clinical risk assessment of the developed scaffold using the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) framework. The response rate was 69.4% with a total of 41 responses received. Two particular failure modes were identified as a high priority through the clinical risk assessment conducted. The highest mean Risk Priority Number was obtained by “failure of healing due to patient risk factors” (45.7 ± 27.7), followed by “insufficient soft tissue area” (37.8 ± 24.1). Despite the rapid developments, finding a scaffold that is both biodegradable and tailored to the patient’s specific defect in cases of large-volume bone regeneration is still challenging for clinicians. Our results indicate a positive perception of clinicians towards this novel scaffold. The FMEA clinical risk assessment has revealed two failure modes that should be prioritized for risk mitigation (safe clinical translation). These findings are important for the safe transition to in-human trials and subsequent clinical use.