Gunpreet Oberoi1,2,3, Sophie Nitsch1,2, Klara Janjić1,2, Hassan Shokoohi-Tabrizi1,2, Andreas Moritz1,2, Francesco Moscato3, Ewald Unger3, Hermann Agis4,5. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria. 3. Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria. hermann.agis@meduniwien.ac.at. 5. Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria. hermann.agis@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: LAY-FOMM is a promising material for FDA-approved Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) applications in drug delivery. Here we investigated the impact on oral cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the impact of 3D-printed LAY-FOMM 40, LAY-FOMM 60, and biocompatible polylactic acid (PLA) on the activity of murine L929 cells, gingival fibroblasts (GF), and periodontal ligament fibroblasts (PDLF) using indirect (samples on cells), direct monolayer culture models (cells on samples), and direct spheroid cultures with resazurin-based toxicity assay, confirmed by MTT and Live-dead staining. The surface topography was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The materials LAY-FOMM 40 and LAY-FOMM 60 led to a reduction in resazurin conversion in L929 cells, GF, and PDLF, higher than the impact of PLA in indirect and direct culture models. Fewer vital cells were found in the presence of LAY-FOMM 40 and 60 than PLA, in the staining in both models. In the direct model, LAY-FOMM 40 and PLA showed less impact on viability in the resazurin-based toxicity assay than in the indirect model. Spheroid microtissues showed a reduction of cell activity of GF and PDLF with LAY-FOMM 40 and 60. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that LAY-FOMM 40 and LAY-FOMM 60 can reduce the activity of L292 and oral cells. Based on the results from the PLA samples, the direct model seems more reliable than the indirect model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A material modification is desired in terms of biocompatibility as it can mask the effect of drugs and interfere with the function of the 3D-printed device.
OBJECTIVES: LAY-FOMM is a promising material for FDA-approved Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) applications in drug delivery. Here we investigated the impact on oral cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the impact of 3D-printed LAY-FOMM 40, LAY-FOMM 60, and biocompatible polylactic acid (PLA) on the activity of murineL929 cells, gingival fibroblasts (GF), and periodontal ligament fibroblasts (PDLF) using indirect (samples on cells), direct monolayer culture models (cells on samples), and direct spheroid cultures with resazurin-based toxicity assay, confirmed by MTT and Live-dead staining. The surface topography was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The materials LAY-FOMM 40 and LAY-FOMM 60 led to a reduction in resazurin conversion in L929 cells, GF, and PDLF, higher than the impact of PLA in indirect and direct culture models. Fewer vital cells were found in the presence of LAY-FOMM 40 and 60 than PLA, in the staining in both models. In the direct model, LAY-FOMM 40 and PLA showed less impact on viability in the resazurin-based toxicity assay than in the indirect model. Spheroid microtissues showed a reduction of cell activity of GF and PDLF with LAY-FOMM 40 and 60. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that LAY-FOMM 40 and LAY-FOMM 60 can reduce the activity of L292 and oral cells. Based on the results from the PLA samples, the direct model seems more reliable than the indirect model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A material modification is desired in terms of biocompatibility as it can mask the effect of drugs and interfere with the function of the 3D-printed device.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D printing; Additive manufacturing; Cytotoxicity; Fused deposition modeling; LAY-FOMM 40 and 60; Microtissue spheroids; Oral fibroblasts
Authors: Umme Kalsoom; Chowdhury Kamrul Hasan; Laura Tedone; Christopher Desire; Feng Li; Michael C Breadmore; Pavel N Nesterenko; Brett Paull Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: James Norman; Rapti D Madurawe; Christine M V Moore; Mansoor A Khan; Akm Khairuzzaman Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Nawal Alharbi; Saud Alharbi; Vincent M J I Cuijpers; Reham B Osman; Daniel Wismeijer Journal: J Prosthodont Res Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 4.642
Authors: Saifalarab A Mohmmed; Morgana E Vianna; Stephen T Hilton; David R Boniface; Yuan-Ling Ng; Jonathan C Knowles Journal: Microsc Res Tech Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 2.769
Authors: Gregory W Bishop; Jennifer E Satterwhite-Warden; Karteek Kadimisetty; James F Rusling Journal: Nanotechnology Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 3.874
Authors: Michael P Chae; Warren M Rozen; Paul G McMenamin; Michael W Findlay; Robert T Spychal; David J Hunter-Smith Journal: Front Surg Date: 2015-06-16