Cargando…

Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Cryogels, known for their biocompatibility and porous structure, lack mechanical strength, while 3D-printed scaffolds have excellent mechanical properties but limited porosity resolution. By combining a 3D-printed plastic gyroid lattice scaffold with a chitosan–gelatin cryogel scaffold, a scaffold c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Olevsky, Levi M., Anup, Amritha, Jacques, Mason, Keokominh, Nadia, Holmgren, Eric P., Hixon, Katherine R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10451777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37627774
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10080889
_version_ 1785095500958007296
author Olevsky, Levi M.
Anup, Amritha
Jacques, Mason
Keokominh, Nadia
Holmgren, Eric P.
Hixon, Katherine R.
author_facet Olevsky, Levi M.
Anup, Amritha
Jacques, Mason
Keokominh, Nadia
Holmgren, Eric P.
Hixon, Katherine R.
author_sort Olevsky, Levi M.
collection PubMed
description Cryogels, known for their biocompatibility and porous structure, lack mechanical strength, while 3D-printed scaffolds have excellent mechanical properties but limited porosity resolution. By combining a 3D-printed plastic gyroid lattice scaffold with a chitosan–gelatin cryogel scaffold, a scaffold can be created that balances the advantages of both fabrication methods. This study compared the pore diameter, swelling potential, mechanical characteristics, and cellular infiltration capability of combined scaffolds and control cryogels. The incorporation of the 3D-printed lattice demonstrated patient-specific geometry capabilities and significantly improved mechanical strength compared to the control cryogel. The combined scaffolds exhibited similar porosity and relative swelling ratio to the control cryogels. However, they had reduced elasticity, reduced absolute swelling capacity, and are potentially cytotoxic, which may affect their performance. This paper presents a novel approach to combine two scaffold types to retain the advantages of each scaffold type while mitigating their shortcomings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10451777
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104517772023-08-26 Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering Olevsky, Levi M. Anup, Amritha Jacques, Mason Keokominh, Nadia Holmgren, Eric P. Hixon, Katherine R. Bioengineering (Basel) Article Cryogels, known for their biocompatibility and porous structure, lack mechanical strength, while 3D-printed scaffolds have excellent mechanical properties but limited porosity resolution. By combining a 3D-printed plastic gyroid lattice scaffold with a chitosan–gelatin cryogel scaffold, a scaffold can be created that balances the advantages of both fabrication methods. This study compared the pore diameter, swelling potential, mechanical characteristics, and cellular infiltration capability of combined scaffolds and control cryogels. The incorporation of the 3D-printed lattice demonstrated patient-specific geometry capabilities and significantly improved mechanical strength compared to the control cryogel. The combined scaffolds exhibited similar porosity and relative swelling ratio to the control cryogels. However, they had reduced elasticity, reduced absolute swelling capacity, and are potentially cytotoxic, which may affect their performance. This paper presents a novel approach to combine two scaffold types to retain the advantages of each scaffold type while mitigating their shortcomings. MDPI 2023-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10451777/ /pubmed/37627774 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10080889 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Olevsky, Levi M.
Anup, Amritha
Jacques, Mason
Keokominh, Nadia
Holmgren, Eric P.
Hixon, Katherine R.
Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
title Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
title_full Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
title_fullStr Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
title_full_unstemmed Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
title_short Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
title_sort direct integration of 3d printing and cryogel scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10451777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37627774
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10080889
work_keys_str_mv AT olevskylevim directintegrationof3dprintingandcryogelscaffoldsforbonetissueengineering
AT anupamritha directintegrationof3dprintingandcryogelscaffoldsforbonetissueengineering
AT jacquesmason directintegrationof3dprintingandcryogelscaffoldsforbonetissueengineering
AT keokominhnadia directintegrationof3dprintingandcryogelscaffoldsforbonetissueengineering
AT holmgrenericp directintegrationof3dprintingandcryogelscaffoldsforbonetissueengineering
AT hixonkatheriner directintegrationof3dprintingandcryogelscaffoldsforbonetissueengineering