Comparative study of seeding methods for three-dimensional polymeric scaffolds

Abstract

Development of tissue-engineered devices may be enhanced by combining cells with porous absorbable polymeric scaffolds before implantation. The cells are seeded throughout the scaffolds and allowed to proliferate in vitro for a predetermined amount of time. The distribution of cells throughout the porous material is one critical component determining success or failure of the tissue-engineered device. This can influence both the successful integration of the device with the host tissue as well as the development of a vascularized network throughout the entire scaffold volume. This research sought to compare different seeding and proliferation methods to select an ideal method for a polyglycolide/aortic endothelial cell system. Two seeding environments, static and dynamic, and three proliferation environments, static, dynamic, and bioreactor, were analyzed, for a total of six possible methods. The six seeding and proliferation combinations were analyzed following a 1-week total culture time. It was determined that for this specific system, dynamic seeding followed by a dynamic proliferation phase is the least promising method and dynamic seeding followed by a bioreactor proliferation phase is the most promising.

Effect of surface acoustic waves on the viability, proliferation and differentiation of primary osteoblast-like cells

“…As compared to the methods described in the literature, 4,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] where the seeding process usually takes hours to days, the present SAW method significantly accelerates the cell seeding process. The fast seeding time also means that multiple drops containing the cells can be successively driven into the scaffold to achieve greater cell loading.…”

“…As we mentioned before, there are various cell seeding methods being developed and most of these studies investigate the cell viability and functionality. 4,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Undoubtedly, cell viability and functionality are critical to the usefulness of any new technique for tissue engineering. 5 Therefore, in addition to high cell viability, the proliferation and differentiation ability of the treated cells showed no difference from those of the untreated cells, indicating that the SAW has no deleterious effects on the cells' functionality.…”

“…However, low seeding efficiencies and nonuniform cell distributions have been reported with these methods as well. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Alvarez-Barreto and co-workers 10,11 developed a more refined approach from these ideas using flow perfusion; a cell suspension is first poured on top of the prewetted scaffold and then the flow is drawn into the scaffold by oscillatory pumping across it, driving the fluid with the suspended cells into the scaffold matrix. Compared to past methods, this technique has been reported to deliver superior cell adhesion and seeding efficiency.…”

A Rapid Seeding Technique for the Assembly of Large Cell/Scaffold Composite Constructs

“…Other dynamic scaffold seeding techniques are described in the tissue engineering literature. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] In one such approach, the carrier scaffold is suspended in a spinner flask containing culture medium. The medium is then inoculated with cells that attach to the carrier over time.…”

Development of a Cell Depositing System using Inkjet Technology

“…A study comparing three seeding techniques found that static cultures had the worst surface and matrix distribution / attachment, and poor metabolic activity. Furthermore, this technique also gave the worst yield [8]. As a result of this low yield, more cells must be used to seed an adequate amount of cells.…”