| Literature DB >> 28952527 |
Dario Puppi1, Andrea Morelli2, Federica Chiellini3.
Abstract
Additive manufacturing of scaffolds made of a polyhydroxyalkanoate blended with another biocompatible polymer represents a cost-effective strategy for combining the advantages of the two blend components in order to develop tailored tissue engineering approaches. The aim of this study was the development of novel poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate)/ poly(ε-caprolactone) (PHBHHx/PCL) blend scaffolds for tissue engineering by means of computer-aided wet-spinning, a hybrid additive manufacturing technique suitable for processing polyhydroxyalkanoates dissolved in organic solvents. The experimental conditions for processing tetrahydrofuran solutions containing the two polymers at different concentrations (PHBHHx/PCL weight ratio of 3:1, 2:1 or 1:1) were optimized in order to manufacture scaffolds with predefined geometry and internal porous architecture. PHBHHx/PCL scaffolds with a 3D interconnected network of macropores and a local microporosity of the polymeric matrix, as a consequence of the phase inversion process governing material solidification, were successfully fabricated. As shown by scanning electron microscopy, thermogravimetric, differential scanning calorimetric and uniaxial compressive analyses, blend composition significantly influenced the scaffold morphological, thermal and mechanical properties. In vitro biological characterization showed that the developed scaffolds were able to sustain the adhesion and proliferation of MC3T3-E1 murine preosteoblast cells. The additive manufacturing approach developed in this study, based on a polymeric solution processing method avoiding possible material degradation related to thermal treatments, could represent a powerful tool for the development of customized PHBHHx-based blend scaffolds for tissue engineering.Entities:
Keywords: additive manufacturing; computer-aided wet-spinning; poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate); poly(ε-caprolactone); polyhydroxyalkanoates; polymers blend; scaffolds; tissue engineering
Year: 2017 PMID: 28952527 PMCID: PMC5590465 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering4020049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Figure 1Schematics of the computer-aided wet-spinning (CAWS) process (left); representative image of the developed scaffolds (right): (a) PHBHHx; (b) PHBHHx/PCL 3:1; (c) PHBHHx/PCL 2:1; (d) PHBHHx/PCL 1:1.
Optimized processing parameters, and scaffold structural parameters obtained from scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis.
| Sample | F (mL·h−1) | Vdep (mm·min−1) | Fiber Diameter (μm) | Pore Size (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHBHHx | 0.5 | 300 | 88 ± 12 | 485 ± 40 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 3:1 | 1 | 560 | 116 ± 12 | 493 ± 29 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 2:1 | 1 | 560 | 114 ± 15 | 470 ± 46 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 1:1 | 1 | 560 | 120 ± 11 | 484 ± 18 |
Morphological parameters expressed as average ± standard deviation.
Figure 2Representative top view (left) and cross-section (right) SEM micrographs of (a) PHBHHx; (b) PHBHHx/PCL 3:1, (c) PHBHHx/PCL 2:1, (d) PHBHHx/PCL 1:1. Inset high magnification micrographs show porosity of outer surface (left) and cross section (right) of single fibers.
Figure 3Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) characterization: weight (a) and derivative weight (b) profiles vs temperature of the developed scaffolds.
Data relevant to thermal decomposition obtained from TGA analysis.
| Sample | 1st Decomposition Step | 2nd Decomposition STEP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak (°C) | Weight Loss (%) | Peak (°C) | Weight Loss (%) | |
| PHBHHx | 290.7 ± 1.8 | 97.6 ± 0.9 | - | - |
| PHBHHx/PCL 3:1 | 291.3 ± 2.2 | 74.6 ± 1.2 | 405.9 ± 0.5 | 25.1 ± 0.4 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 2:1 | 289.2 ± 1.4 | 65.4 ± 1.4 | 405.9 ± 0.7 | 34.2 ± 0.5 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 1:1 | 285.2 ± 1.6 | 44.9 ± 0.8 | 405.3 ± 0.8 | 54.6 ± 0.8 |
| PCL raw | - | - | 406.6 ± 0.4 | 99.1 ± 0.4 |
Data expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 4Representative differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) thermograms of the analyzed samples relevant to the first heating (a) and second heating (b) cycles.
Data relevant to thermal characterization by DSC analysis.
| Sample | 1st Heating | 2nd Heating | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tg1 (°C) | Tm1 (°C) | ΔH1 (J/g) | Tg2 (°C) | Tm2 (°C) | ΔH2 (J/g) | Tg1 (°C) | Tm1 (°C) | ΔH1 (J/g) | Tg2 (°C) | |
| PHBHHx | --- | --- | --- | −0.6 ± 0.2 | 93.7 ± 1.2 | 41.4 ± 1.8 | --- | --- | --- | −1.1 ± 0.6 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 3:1 | −70.7 ± 1.6 | 58.5 ± 0.9 | 18.6 ± 1.2 | −0.2 ± 0.6 | 93.5 ± 1.6 | 18.4 ± 0.9 | −66.2 ± 0.8 | 56.0 ± 1.2 | 15.4 ± 0.8 | −1.1 ± 0.8 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 2:1 | −65.2 ± 1.4 | 60.7 ± 1.2 | 30.2 ± 1.8 | −0.1 ± 0.3 | 94.3 ± 2.1 | 14.9 ± 1.1 | −64.9 ± 1.3 | 55.8 ± 0.4 | 21.1 ± 1.4 | −0.9 ± 0.4 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 1:1 | −60.2 ± 1.4 | 61.3 ± 0.8 | 53.4 ± 2.4 | −0.6 ± 0.2 | 94.2 ± 1.9 | 7.5 ± 0.4 | −63.4 ± 1.4 | 56.3 ± 1.6 | 36.0 ± 1.4 | −1.4 ± 0.5 |
| PCL raw | −61.4 ± 1.1 | 63.4 ± 0.5 | 96.5 ± 2.1 | --- | --- | --- | −64.7 ± 1.6 | 55.9 ± 1.5 | 83.0 ± 2.6 | --- |
Data expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 5Representative stress-strain curve under compression (0.4 mm/min) of PHBHHx-based scaffolds.
Compressive mechanical parameters of the developed scaffolds.
| Scaffolds | Compressive Modulus (MPa) | Yield Strain (%) | Yield Stress (MPa) | Stress at 85% Strain (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHBHHx | 0.16 ± 0.12 | 56.8 ± 9.5 | 0.32 ± 0.02 | 0.47 ± 0.09 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 3:1 | 0.17 ± 0.89 | 35.0 ± 9.4 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.41 ± 0.09 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 2:1 | 0.39 ± 0.14 | 57.9 ± 5.5 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.48 ± 0.05 |
| PHBHHx/PCL 1:1 | 0.37 ± 0.07 | 66.8 ± 5.5 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 0.51 ± 0.07 |
Data expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 6MC3T3-E1 cell proliferation on PHBHHx and PHBHHx/PCL based scaffolds.
Figure 7Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) microphotographs showing MC3T3-E1 cell cultured on PHBHHx and PHBHHx/PCL based scaffolds, at different end-points.