Hae Sang Park1,2, Hyun Jung Park2, Junhee Lee3, Pureum Kim3, Ji Seung Lee2, Young Jin Lee2, Ye Been Seo2, Do Yeon Kim2, Olatunji Ajiteru2, Ok Joo Lee2, Chan Hum Park1,2. 1. 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University, 77 Sakju-ro, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24253 Republic of Korea. 2. 2Nano-Bio Regenerative Medical Institute, College of Medicine, Hallym University, 1 Hallymdaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24252 Republic of Korea. 3. 3Department of Nature-Inspired Nano Convergence System, Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM), 156 Gajeongbuk-ro,Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34103 Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several types of three-dimensional (3D)-printed tracheal scaffolds have been reported. Nonetheless, most of these studies concentrated only on application of the final product to an in vivo animal study and could not show the effects of various 3D printing methods, materials, or parameters for creation of an optimal 3D-printed tracheal scaffold. The purpose of this study was to characterize polycaprolactone (PCL) tracheal scaffolds 3D-printed by the 4-axis fused deposition modeling (FDM) method and determine the differences in the scaffold depending on the additive manufacturing method. METHODS: The standard 3D trachea model for FDM was applied to a 4-axis FDM scaffold and conventional FDM scaffold. The scaffold morphology, mechanical properties, porosity, and cytotoxicity were evaluated. Scaffolds were implanted into a 7 × 10-mm artificial tracheal defect in rabbits. Four and 8 weeks after the operation, the reconstructed sites were evaluated by bronchoscopic, radiological, and histological analyses. RESULTS: The 4-axis FDM provided greater dimensional accuracy and was significantly closer to CAD software-based designs with a predefined pore size and pore interconnectivity as compared to the conventional scaffold. The 4-axis tracheal scaffold showed superior mechanical properties. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the 4-axis FDM process is more suitable for the development of an accurate and mechanically superior trachea scaffold.
BACKGROUND: Several types of three-dimensional (3D)-printed tracheal scaffolds have been reported. Nonetheless, most of these studies concentrated only on application of the final product to an in vivo animal study and could not show the effects of various 3D printing methods, materials, or parameters for creation of an optimal 3D-printed tracheal scaffold. The purpose of this study was to characterize polycaprolactone (PCL) tracheal scaffolds 3D-printed by the 4-axis fused deposition modeling (FDM) method and determine the differences in the scaffold depending on the additive manufacturing method. METHODS: The standard 3D trachea model for FDM was applied to a 4-axis FDM scaffold and conventional FDM scaffold. The scaffold morphology, mechanical properties, porosity, and cytotoxicity were evaluated. Scaffolds were implanted into a 7 × 10-mm artificial tracheal defect in rabbits. Four and 8 weeks after the operation, the reconstructed sites were evaluated by bronchoscopic, radiological, and histological analyses. RESULTS: The 4-axis FDM provided greater dimensional accuracy and was significantly closer to CAD software-based designs with a predefined pore size and pore interconnectivity as compared to the conventional scaffold. The 4-axis tracheal scaffold showed superior mechanical properties. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the 4-axis FDM process is more suitable for the development of an accurate and mechanically superior trachea scaffold.
Authors: Soo Hyeon Kim; Hae Sang Park; Ok Joo Lee; Janet Ren Chao; Hyun Jung Park; Jung Min Lee; Hyung Woo Ju; Bo Mi Moon; Ye Ri Park; Jeong Eun Song; Gilson Khang; Chan Hum Park Journal: Int J Biol Macromol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Jeong Hun Park; Jung Min Hong; Young Min Ju; Jin Woo Jung; Hyun-Wook Kang; Sang Jin Lee; James J Yoo; Sung Won Kim; Soo Hyun Kim; Dong-Woo Cho Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Ja H Lee; Hae S Park; Se H Oh; Jin H Lee; Jin R Kim; Hyun J Kim; Soo Y Jung; Sung M Chung; Hong S Choi; Han S Kim Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Doh Young Lee; Su A Park; Sang Jin Lee; Tae Ho Kim; Se Heang Oh; Jin Ho Lee; Seong Keun Kwon Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Antti A Mäkitie; Jyrki Korpela; Laura Elomaa; Maija Reivonen; Anne Kokkari; Minna Malin; Harri Korhonen; Xiaohong Wang; Jarmo Salo; Eero Sihvo; Mika Salmi; Jouni Partanen; Kaija-Stiina Paloheimo; Jukka Tuomi; Timo Närhi; Jukka Seppälä Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Giuseppe Damiano; Vincenzo Davide Palumbo; Salvatore Fazzotta; Francesco Curione; Giulia Lo Monte; Valerio Maria Bartolo Brucato; Attilio Ignazio Lo Monte Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-06-25