Increased Osteogenic Potential of Pre-Osteoblasts on Three-Dimensional Printed Scaffolds Compared to Porous Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration

Abstract

Background: One of the main challenges with conventional scaffold fabrication methods is the inability to control scaffold architecture. Recently, scaffolds with controlled shape and architecture have been fabricated using 3D-printing. Herein, we aimed to determine whether the much tighter control of microstructure of 3DP PLGA/β-TCP scaffolds is more effective in promoting osteogenesis than porous scaffolds produced by solvent casting/porogen leaching. Methods: Physical and mechanical properties of porous and 3DP scaffolds were studied. The response of pre-osteoblasts to the scaffolds was analyzed after 14 days. Results: The 3DP scaffolds had a smoother surface (R a : 22 ± 3 µm) relative to the highly rough surface of porous scaffolds (R a : 110 ± 15 µm). Water contact angle was 112 ± 4° on porous and 76 ± 6° on 3DP scaffolds. Porous and 3DP scaffolds had the pore size of 408 ± 90 and 315 ± 17 µm and porosity of 85 ± 5% and 39 ± 7%, respectively. Compressive strength of 3DP scaffolds (4.0 ± 0.3 MPa) was higher than porous scaffolds (1.7 ± 0.2 MPa). Collagenous matrix deposition was similar on both scaffolds. Cells proliferated from day 1 to day 14 by fourfold in porous and by 3.8-fold in 3DP scaffolds. ALP activity was 21-fold higher in 3DP scaffolds than porous scaffolds. Conclusion: The 3DP scaffolds show enhanced mechanical properties and ALP activity compared to porous scaffolds in vitro , suggesting that 3DP PLGA/β-TCP scaffolds are possibly more favorable for bone formation.

Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Fabrication of Biomaterials for Surgical Procedures in Dentistry: A Narrative Review

“…As expected, several studies used polymers (as PCL, PLGA, PLA, PLLA, PDA, PEKK, and PHB) for scaffold fabrication due to their ability to be manipulated in AM techniques, especially by extrusion techniques 8,9,11–13,16,17,22–28,30,31,33–37,39,41,43–60,69,71,72,90,92,106 . Also, HAp, β‐TCP, and magnesium and its derivatives 9–11,12,14,18,19,21,28,33,35,36,37,46,55–58,62,74–76,104,105,108,109 were frequently used due to their favorable properties.…”

“…Concerning in vitro studies, the included articles evaluated mesenchymal stem cells, 8,13,16,20,29,30,34,44,45,47,48,51 52,53,55,62,63,67,72,77,79,87,89,90,92,101,105,109 osteoblasts, 31,33,35,37,46,49,54, 60,62,71,78,104–108 fibroblasts, 39 bone tumoral cells, 15,38,42,50,53,56,89,103 monocyte/macrophage cells line, 70,103 and endothelial cells 55,77,90 . The mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow, 8,20,29,34,45,47,55,63,67,72,77,87,89,101,105 adipose, 16,34,62 dental pulp, 13,79 periodontal ligament, 30 tonsil, 51 and Wharton's Jelly tissue 44,48,52,53,90,109 .…”

“…14,39,79,89 Among the 89 selected articles, 9 did not perform biological tests to assess cell and bone growth, 17,23,26,41 59,64,68,88,102 evaluating the mechanical and morphological properties, 26,41,59,64,68,88,102 porosity and pore interconnectivity, 88 dissolution rates, 26,68 thermal stability, 26,41 surface wettability, 26,102 bacterial adhesion, 17 and antibacterial activity. 41 In order to assess cell and bone growth, 37 articles performed in vitro studies, 16,[19][20][21][22]24,30,31,35,[37][38][39]42,[44][45][46][47][48]50,54,56,60,62,63,67,70,71,…”

“…16 As expected, several studies used polymers (as PCL, PLGA, PLA, PLLA, PDA, PEKK, and PHB) for scaffold fabrication due to their ability to be ma-nipulated in AM techniques, especially by extrusion techniques. 8,9,[11][12][13]16,17,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]30,31,[33][34][35][36][37]39,41,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]69,71,72,90,92,106 Also, HAp, β-TCP, and magnesium and its derivatives [9][10]…”

Current Application of Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate in Bone Repair and Its Mechanism to Regulate Osteogenesis

“…The physical characteristics of implanted biomaterials can affect the proliferation rate of osteoblasts and has important effects on cytokine gene expression (Barbeck et al, 2021). It has been established that the porous structure of calcium phosphate material can significantly influence bone regeneration (Xie et al, 2016;Bastami et al, 2017;Seong et al, 2020;Zamani et al, 2021). The porous surface of bone materials enhances the mechanical interlocking between the bone substitute and the surrounding bone tissues, providing mechanical stability to the bone-material interface (Meka et al, 2019;Roopavath et al, 2019;Cao et al, 2019;Dos Santos Trento et al, 2020).…”