Cargando…

Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing

Gelatine is a well-known and extensively studied biopolymer, widely used in recent decades to create biomaterials in many different ways, exploiting its molecular resemblance with collagen, the main constituent of the extra-cellular matrix, from which it is derived. Many have employed this biopolyme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Montanari, Margherita, Sangiorgi, Alex, Campodoni, Elisabetta, Bassi, Giada, Gardini, Davide, Montesi, Monica, Panseri, Silvia, Sanson, Alessandra, Tampieri, Anna, Sandri, Monica
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35267859
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14051036
_version_ 1784667913154723840
author Montanari, Margherita
Sangiorgi, Alex
Campodoni, Elisabetta
Bassi, Giada
Gardini, Davide
Montesi, Monica
Panseri, Silvia
Sanson, Alessandra
Tampieri, Anna
Sandri, Monica
author_facet Montanari, Margherita
Sangiorgi, Alex
Campodoni, Elisabetta
Bassi, Giada
Gardini, Davide
Montesi, Monica
Panseri, Silvia
Sanson, Alessandra
Tampieri, Anna
Sandri, Monica
author_sort Montanari, Margherita
collection PubMed
description Gelatine is a well-known and extensively studied biopolymer, widely used in recent decades to create biomaterials in many different ways, exploiting its molecular resemblance with collagen, the main constituent of the extra-cellular matrix, from which it is derived. Many have employed this biopolymer in tissue engineering and chemically modified (e.g., gelatin methacryloyl) or blended it with other polymers (e.g., alginate) to modulate or increase its performances and printability. Nevertheless, little is reported about its use as a stand-alone material. Moreover, despite the fact that multiple works have been reported on the realization of mould-casted and three-dimensional printed scaffolds in tissue engineering, a clear comparison among these two shaping processes, towards a comparable workflow starting from the same material, has never been published. Herein, we report the use of gelatine as stand-alone material, not modified, blended, or admixed to be processed or crosslinked, for the realization of suitable scaffolds for tissue engineering, towards the two previously mentioned shaping processes. To make the comparison reliable, the same pre-process (e.g., the gelatin solution preparation) and post-process (e.g., freeze-drying and crosslinking) steps were applied. In this study, gelatine solution was firstly rheologically characterized to find a formulation suitable for being processed with both the shaping processes selected. The realized scaffolds were then morphologically, phisico-chemically, mechanically, and biologically characterized to determine and compare their performances. Despite the fact that the same starting material was employed, as well as the same pre- and post-process steps, the two groups resulted, for most aspects, in diametrically opposed characteristics. The mould-casted scaffolds that resulted were characterized by small, little-interconnected, and random porosity, high resistance to compression and slow cell colonization, while the three-dimensional printed scaffolds displayed big, well-interconnected, and geometrically defined porosity, high elasticity and recover ability after compression, as well as fast and deep cell colonization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8915043
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89150432022-03-12 Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing Montanari, Margherita Sangiorgi, Alex Campodoni, Elisabetta Bassi, Giada Gardini, Davide Montesi, Monica Panseri, Silvia Sanson, Alessandra Tampieri, Anna Sandri, Monica Polymers (Basel) Article Gelatine is a well-known and extensively studied biopolymer, widely used in recent decades to create biomaterials in many different ways, exploiting its molecular resemblance with collagen, the main constituent of the extra-cellular matrix, from which it is derived. Many have employed this biopolymer in tissue engineering and chemically modified (e.g., gelatin methacryloyl) or blended it with other polymers (e.g., alginate) to modulate or increase its performances and printability. Nevertheless, little is reported about its use as a stand-alone material. Moreover, despite the fact that multiple works have been reported on the realization of mould-casted and three-dimensional printed scaffolds in tissue engineering, a clear comparison among these two shaping processes, towards a comparable workflow starting from the same material, has never been published. Herein, we report the use of gelatine as stand-alone material, not modified, blended, or admixed to be processed or crosslinked, for the realization of suitable scaffolds for tissue engineering, towards the two previously mentioned shaping processes. To make the comparison reliable, the same pre-process (e.g., the gelatin solution preparation) and post-process (e.g., freeze-drying and crosslinking) steps were applied. In this study, gelatine solution was firstly rheologically characterized to find a formulation suitable for being processed with both the shaping processes selected. The realized scaffolds were then morphologically, phisico-chemically, mechanically, and biologically characterized to determine and compare their performances. Despite the fact that the same starting material was employed, as well as the same pre- and post-process steps, the two groups resulted, for most aspects, in diametrically opposed characteristics. The mould-casted scaffolds that resulted were characterized by small, little-interconnected, and random porosity, high resistance to compression and slow cell colonization, while the three-dimensional printed scaffolds displayed big, well-interconnected, and geometrically defined porosity, high elasticity and recover ability after compression, as well as fast and deep cell colonization. MDPI 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8915043/ /pubmed/35267859 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14051036 Text en © 2022 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
Montanari, Margherita
Sangiorgi, Alex
Campodoni, Elisabetta
Bassi, Giada
Gardini, Davide
Montesi, Monica
Panseri, Silvia
Sanson, Alessandra
Tampieri, Anna
Sandri, Monica
Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing
title Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing
title_full Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing
title_fullStr Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing
title_full_unstemmed Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing
title_short Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing
title_sort additive-free gelatine-based devices for chondral tissue regeneration: shaping process comparison among mould casting and three-dimensional printing
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35267859
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14051036
work_keys_str_mv AT montanarimargherita additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT sangiorgialex additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT campodonielisabetta additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT bassigiada additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT gardinidavide additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT montesimonica additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT panserisilvia additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT sansonalessandra additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT tampierianna additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting
AT sandrimonica additivefreegelatinebaseddevicesforchondraltissueregenerationshapingprocesscomparisonamongmouldcastingandthreedimensionalprinting