A Review of Bioreactors and Mechanical Stimuli

Brunelli, Marzia; Perrault, Cécile M.; Lacroix, Damien

doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8075-3_1

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The major limitations of this study are related to: i) the static nature of the compression, as cyclic loading profiles have been suggested in the literature but not implemented at this stage; [ 48,50 ] ii) the reduced configuration of the FE models, i.e., full models equivalent to the printed samples would allow for more complex perfusion paths; iii) the lack of a scaffold degradation mechanism, which shall be implemented in future developments. These shall include the combination of different TPMS geometries and/or porosity gradients, in order to achieve comprehensive TE solutions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micromechanical Behavior of TPMS Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Castro

Santos

Pires

et al. 2020

Macro Materials & Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) methodology is explored to design porosity and curvature‐controlled tissue engineering (TE) scaffolds. This work combines mechanical testing and finite element (FE) simulation to characterize TPMS scaffolds micromechanical behavior, i.e., to estimate the response at the cell level to the macromechanical properties of different geometries (Schwartz D, Gyroid, and Schwartz P, with 60%, 70%, and 80% porosity, identified from SD60 to SP80) and testing conditions (6%, 8%, and 10% ramp compression, during 10, 20, and 30 s). Mechanical tests with ten 3D printed samples per model obtain Young Modulus levels from 0.048 GPa (SD80) to 0.267 GPa (SD60) and yield stresses from 0.495 MPa (SP80) to 5.226 MPa (SD60), being these associated with trabecular bone. FE simulations identify strain rate as the major influencer for cell response, as the probabilities for bone formation increase from 23.18% (SD) to 29.81% (SP) when increasing the compression period from 10 to 30 s. Additionally, compression beyond 6% causes excessive rates of cell death. SD and SG models have more consistent cell adhesion paths than SP ones, but superior stiffness of SD scaffolds induces higher cell death probabilities. Thus, SG scaffolds would be a better choice for most TE applications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micromechanical Behavior of TPMS Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Castro

Santos

Pires

et al. 2020

Macro Materials & Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, multiple bioreactors were developed to apply stresses to cultured osteoblast cells (and their underlying substrate) to better replicate native bone environment. Such bioreactors can apply contact uniaxial compression/tension , contact biaxial compression/tension , flow inducing shear-stress , mechanical shear stress electrical or a combination of these stimuli (Brunelli et al, 2019;Pörtner et al, 2005). Also, bioreactors applying static or cyclic hydrostatic pressure by compressing the gas phase above incompressible media, or by direct compression of the medium were used on seeded cells (Gardinier et al, 2009;Henstock et al, 2013;Liu et al, 2010;Reinwald et al, 2015;Reinwald and El Haj, 2018;Stavenschi et al, 2018;Zhao et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Force-regulated mechanisms lead to formation and removal of bone tissue through bone remodeling processes (Bonewald and Johnson, 2008) and the pressure inside the lacuna-canaliculi network is around 280 kPa (Zhang et al, 1998). Bioreactors have also been developed to apply stresses to osteoblast cells to replicate the native bone environment via uniaxial compression/tension, biaxial compression/tension, shear-stress, etc (Brunelli et al, 2019; Pörtner et al, 2005). Hydrostatic pressure (HP) stimulation on cultured cells has also been achieved by compressing the gas phase above an incompressible media (Gardinier et al, 2009; Henstock et al, 2013; Liu et al, 2010; Reinwald et al, 2015; Reinwald and El Haj, 2018; Stavenschi et al, 2018; Zhao et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bioreactors have also been developed to apply stresses to osteoblast cells to replicate the native bone environment via uniaxial compression/tension, biaxial compression/tension, shearstress, etc. (Brunelli et al, 2019;Pörtner et al, 2005). Pressure modulating bioreactors using low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) were also developed to stimulate osteoblastic and chondrogenic differentiation (Aliabouzar et al, 2018(Aliabouzar et al, , 2016Katiyar et al, 2014;Minto et al, 2020;Osborn et al, 2019;Zhou et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanosensitive Osteogenesis on Native Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Pelling

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate physical representation of the tissue microenvironment is essential for implant development. In this study, we applied cyclic hydrostatic pressure (HP) to mimic the effect of cyclic hydrostatic pressure (HP) in a bone-like environment, using a custom-made, remote controlled bioreactor. In recent years, plant-derived cellulosic biomaterials have become a popular way to create scaffolds for a variety of tissue engineering applications. Moreover, such scaffolds possess similar physical properties (porosity, stiffness) that resemble bone tissues and have been explored as potential biomaterials for tissue engineering applications. Here, plant-derived cellulose scaffolds (derived from apple hypanthium tissue) were seeded with MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblast cells. After 1 week of proliferation, cell-seeded scaffolds were exposed to HP up to 270 KPa at a frequency of 1Hz, once per day, for up to 2 weeks. Scaffolds were incubated in osteogenic inducing media or regular culture media. The effect of cyclic hydrostatic pressure combined with osteogenic inducing media on cell-seeded scaffolds resulted in an increase of differentiated cells. This corresponded with an upregulation of alkaline phosphatase activity and scaffold mineralization. The results reveal that in vitro, the mechanosensitive pathways which regulate osteogenesis appear to be functional on novel plant-derived cellulosic biomaterials.

show abstract

“…Additionally, perfusion-induced shear stress supports maintenance of the physiological state for many cell types such as endothelial cells. Beyond these flow-induced mechanical stimuli, complex bioreactors are also able to apply additional signals such as mechanical loading or torsion to the tissue to increase the correlation to natural conditions [24]. As a further general requirement, a bioreactor protects the construct from contaminants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process.

show abstract

A Review of Bioreactors and Mechanical Stimuli

Cited by 8 publications

References 87 publications

Micromechanical Behavior of TPMS Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Micromechanical Behavior of TPMS Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Mechanosensitive Osteogenesis on Native Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About