Cargando…

3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration

The present study investigated two novel biophotopolymer classes that are chemically based on non-toxic poly (vinyl alcohol). These vinylesters and vinylcarbonates were compared to standard acrylates in vitro on MC3T3-E1 cells and in vivo in a small animal model. In vitro, both vinylester and vinylc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Russmueller, Guenter, Liska, Robert, Stampfl, Juergen, Heller, Christian, Mautner, Andreas, Macfelda, Karin, Kapeller, Barbara, Lieber, Roman, Haider, Agnes, Mika, Kathrin, Schopper, Christian, Perisanidis, Christos, Seemann, Rudolf, Moser, Doris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5455760/
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8063685
_version_ 1783241103812591616
author Russmueller, Guenter
Liska, Robert
Stampfl, Juergen
Heller, Christian
Mautner, Andreas
Macfelda, Karin
Kapeller, Barbara
Lieber, Roman
Haider, Agnes
Mika, Kathrin
Schopper, Christian
Perisanidis, Christos
Seemann, Rudolf
Moser, Doris
author_facet Russmueller, Guenter
Liska, Robert
Stampfl, Juergen
Heller, Christian
Mautner, Andreas
Macfelda, Karin
Kapeller, Barbara
Lieber, Roman
Haider, Agnes
Mika, Kathrin
Schopper, Christian
Perisanidis, Christos
Seemann, Rudolf
Moser, Doris
author_sort Russmueller, Guenter
collection PubMed
description The present study investigated two novel biophotopolymer classes that are chemically based on non-toxic poly (vinyl alcohol). These vinylesters and vinylcarbonates were compared to standard acrylates in vitro on MC3T3-E1 cells and in vivo in a small animal model. In vitro, both vinylester and vinylcarbonate monomers showed about tenfold less cytotoxicity when compared to acrylates (IC(50): 2.922 mM and 2.392 mM vs. 0.201 mM) and at least threefold higher alkaline phosphatase activity (17.038 and 18.836 vs. 5.795, measured at [10 mM]). In vivo, polymerized 3D cellular structures were implanted into the distal femoral condyle of 16 New Zealand White Rabbits and were observed for periods from 4 to 12 weeks. New bone formation and bone to implant contact was evaluated by histomorphometry at end of observation. Vinylesters showed similar rates of new bone formation but significantly less (p = 0.002) bone to implant contact, when compared to acrylates. In contrast, the implantation of vinylcarbonate based biophotopolymers led to significantly higher rates of newly formed bone (p < 0.001) and bone to implant contact (p < 0.001). Additionally, distinct signs of polymer degradation could be observed in vinylesters and vinylcarbonates by histology. We conclude, that vinylesters and vinylcarbonates are promising new biophotopolymers, that outmatch available poly(lactic acid) and (meth)acrylate based materials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5455760
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54557602017-07-28 3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration Russmueller, Guenter Liska, Robert Stampfl, Juergen Heller, Christian Mautner, Andreas Macfelda, Karin Kapeller, Barbara Lieber, Roman Haider, Agnes Mika, Kathrin Schopper, Christian Perisanidis, Christos Seemann, Rudolf Moser, Doris Materials (Basel) Article The present study investigated two novel biophotopolymer classes that are chemically based on non-toxic poly (vinyl alcohol). These vinylesters and vinylcarbonates were compared to standard acrylates in vitro on MC3T3-E1 cells and in vivo in a small animal model. In vitro, both vinylester and vinylcarbonate monomers showed about tenfold less cytotoxicity when compared to acrylates (IC(50): 2.922 mM and 2.392 mM vs. 0.201 mM) and at least threefold higher alkaline phosphatase activity (17.038 and 18.836 vs. 5.795, measured at [10 mM]). In vivo, polymerized 3D cellular structures were implanted into the distal femoral condyle of 16 New Zealand White Rabbits and were observed for periods from 4 to 12 weeks. New bone formation and bone to implant contact was evaluated by histomorphometry at end of observation. Vinylesters showed similar rates of new bone formation but significantly less (p = 0.002) bone to implant contact, when compared to acrylates. In contrast, the implantation of vinylcarbonate based biophotopolymers led to significantly higher rates of newly formed bone (p < 0.001) and bone to implant contact (p < 0.001). Additionally, distinct signs of polymer degradation could be observed in vinylesters and vinylcarbonates by histology. We conclude, that vinylesters and vinylcarbonates are promising new biophotopolymers, that outmatch available poly(lactic acid) and (meth)acrylate based materials. MDPI 2015-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5455760/ http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8063685 Text en © 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Russmueller, Guenter
Liska, Robert
Stampfl, Juergen
Heller, Christian
Mautner, Andreas
Macfelda, Karin
Kapeller, Barbara
Lieber, Roman
Haider, Agnes
Mika, Kathrin
Schopper, Christian
Perisanidis, Christos
Seemann, Rudolf
Moser, Doris
3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration
title 3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration
title_full 3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration
title_fullStr 3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration
title_full_unstemmed 3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration
title_short 3D Printable Biophotopolymers for in Vivo Bone Regeneration
title_sort 3d printable biophotopolymers for in vivo bone regeneration
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5455760/
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma8063685
work_keys_str_mv AT russmuellerguenter 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT liskarobert 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT stampfljuergen 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT hellerchristian 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT mautnerandreas 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT macfeldakarin 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT kapellerbarbara 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT lieberroman 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT haideragnes 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT mikakathrin 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT schopperchristian 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT perisanidischristos 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT seemannrudolf 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration
AT moserdoris 3dprintablebiophotopolymersforinvivoboneregeneration