Cargando…
Increased Osteogenic Potential of Pre-Osteoblasts on Three-Dimensional Printed Scaffolds Compared to Porous Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration
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 o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Pasteur Institute of Iran
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7921523/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33461289 http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/ibj.25.2.78 |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|