| Literature DB >> 30857349 |
Lijun Shan1, Abdul Amir H Kadhum2, M S H Al-Furjan3,4, Wenjian Weng5, Youping Gong6, Kui Cheng7, Maoying Zhou8, Lingqing Dong9, Guojin Chen10, Mohd S Takriff11, Abu Bakar Sulong12.
Abstract
It is well known that three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology used to produce customized implants and surface characteristics of implants, strongly deciding their osseointegration ability. In this study, Ti alloy microspheres were printed under selected rational printing parameters in order to tailor the surface micro-characteristics of the printed implants during additive manufacturing by an in situ, controlled way. The laser path and hatching space were responsible for the appearance of the stripy structure (S), while the bulbous structure (B) and bulbous⁻stripy composite surface (BS) were determined by contour scanning. A nano-sized structure could be superposed by hydrothermal treatment. The cytocompatibility was evaluated by culturing Mouse calvaria-derived preosteoblastic cells (MC3T3-E1). The results showed that three typical microstructured surfaces, S, B, and BS, could be achieved by varying the 3D printing parameters. Moreover, the osteogenic differentiation potential of the S, B, and BS surfaces could be significantly enhanced, and the addition of nano-sized structures could be further improved. The BS surface with nano-sized structure demonstrated the optimum osteogenic differentiation potential. The present research demonstrated an in situ, controlled way to tailor and optimize the surface structures in micro-size during the 3D printing process for an implant with higher osseointegration ability.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; Ti implants; in situ control; micro-nano structured surface; osteogenesis
Year: 2019 PMID: 30857349 PMCID: PMC6427748 DOI: 10.3390/ma12050815
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1SEM images of three typical surface topographies: (a) stripy structure (S), (b) bulbous structure (B), and (c) bulbous–stripy composite surface (BS); (d) high-resolution images of BS microstructures; and (e) topography of Ti substrate (control).
Figure 2(a) SEM image of microstructures after hydrothermal treatment and (b) high-resolution images of porous nanostructures on the microstructure.
Figure 3SEM image and element mappings of precipitates on the surface of the 3D printed samples (a,b) O Kal; (c) Al Kal; (d) Ti Kal; (e) V Kal.
EDS determination of the element content of the different areas of the three-dimensional (3D)-printed surface.
| Area | Ti K | Al K | V K | O K |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate | 73.98 | 5.51 | 3.28 | 14.86 |
| Microsphere | 72.44 | 5.46 | 3.16 | 15.87 |
| Graininess | 35.22 | 16.00 | 2.01 | 46.77 |
Figure 4Protein adsorption ability analysis of MC3T3-E1 cells on different surface structures.
Figure 5Cellular viability evaluation (CCK-8 assay) of MC3T3-E1 cells on different surface surfaces after one-day and five-day cultures.
Figure 6The fluorescence staining images representing the distribution of cells (a) S, (b) B, (c) BS.
Figure 7The confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) images representing cellular distribution on different surfaces: (a) S, (b) B, (c) BS, (d) PS, (e) PB, (f) PBS. The circles identify the nanostructured microspheres.
Figure 8Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression of MC3T3-E1 cells on different surface structures after seven-day and 14-day cultures.
Figure 9Schematic of the formation of three typical surface structures by regulating the 3D printing parameters.