| Literature DB >> 33147742 |
Kubra Aranci1,2, Muhammet Uzun1,3, Sena Su1,4, Sumeyye Cesur1,4, Songul Ulag1,4, Al Amin3, Mehmet Mucahit Guncu5, Burak Aksu6, Sevgi Kolayli7, Cem Bulent Ustundag8, Jorge Carvalho Silva9, Denisa Ficai10,11, Anton Ficai11,12,13, Oguzhan Gunduz1,4.
Abstract
In this study, the main aim was to fabricate propolis (Ps)-containing wound dressing patches using 3D printing technology. Different combinations and structures of propolis (Ps)-incorporated sodium alginate (SA) scaffolds were developed. The morphological studies showed that the porosity of developed scaffolds was optimized when 20% (v/v) of Ps was added to the solution. The pore sizes decreased by increasing Ps concentration up to a certain level due to its adhesive properties. The mechanical, swelling-degradation (weight loss) behaviors, and Ps release kinetics were highlighted for the scaffold stability. An antimicrobial assay was employed to test and screen antimicrobial behavior of Ps against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus strains. The results show that the Ps-added scaffolds have an excellent antibacterial activity because of Ps compounds. An in vitro cytotoxicity test was also applied on the scaffold by using the extract method on the human dermal fibroblasts (HFFF2) cell line. The 3D-printed SA-Ps scaffolds are very useful structures for wound dressing applications.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; propolis; sodium alginate; tissue scaffold; wound treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33147742 PMCID: PMC7662765 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25215082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
The contents of each sample. SA, sodium alginate; Ps, propolis.
| Prepared Solutions | SA Content | Ps Content |
|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 4.5 | 0 |
| Sample 2 | 4.5 | 10 |
| Sample 3 | 4.5 | 20 |
| Sample 4 | 4.5 | 40 |
Figure 1Schematic drawing of the experiment. (a) 3D printer. (b) Syringe pump system of machine. (c) Simplyf3D program illustration of scaffolds. (d) 3D-printed scaffold in glass slide before crosslinking. (e) After crosslinking of 3D-printed scaffolds.
Figure 2(a) Absorbance values according to different dilution ratios for the standard calibration curve. (b) Standard calibration curve of Ps solution. (c) Release profile of 3D-printed Ps-incorporated SA scaffolds in different pH mediums.
Physical properties summary of scaffolds.
| Samples | Viscosity (mPa.s) | Density | Surface Tension (mN.m−1) | Image of 20 Layers Printed Scaffold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 6109 | 1.022 ± 0.02 | 39.43 |
|
| Sample 2 | 8018 | 1.023 ± 0.03 | 44.73 |
|
| Sample 3 | 8028 | 1.024 ± 0.02 | 64.78 |
|
| Sample 4 | Measurement failed | Measurement failed | Measurement failed |
|
Figure 3FT-IR spectrums of (a) SA with Ps tissue scaffolds, (b) only Ps solution and (c) pure SA solution.
Figure 4SEM images of 3D-printed SA and Ps-incorporated SA scaffolds. (a) SA scaffolds and pore size histogram (Sample 1). (b) Ps included SA scaffolds and pore size histogram (Sample 3) (c) SEM image of Sample 3 scaffold from different angle. (d) Magnification of the scaffold pores. (e) Pore size distribution according to propolis content.
Tensile test measurements of produced scaffolds.
| Scaffolds | Tensile Strength | Elongation at Break |
|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 3.92 ± 1.08 | 14.74 ± 1.22 |
| Sample 2 | 2.42 ± 0.62 | 20.57 ± 1.96 |
| Sample 3 | 2.33 ± 1.76 | 25.00 ± 6.68 |
Fitting experimental release data from the Ps release of 3D-printed scaffolds to Higuchi and Korsmeyer–Peppas kinetic equations for neutral and acidic conditions (pH 7.4 and 2).
| Release pH | Higuchi Model | Korsmeyer–Peppas Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | Kh | R2 | n | |
| pH 7.4 | 0.9822 | 6.025 | 0.9715 | 0.4492 |
| pH 2.0 | 0.9515 | 7.9228 | 0.8633 | 0.6153 |
Figure 5(a) Swelling and (b) degradation kinetics of 3D-printed Sample 1 and Sample 3 scaffolds in PBS 7.4 at 37 °C.
Figure 6(a) The SA without Ps scaffolds against S. aureus and E. coli after 18 h incubation at 37 °C. (b) The inhibition zones of different Ps concentrations and ampicillin (2 and 10 μg) against S. aureus and E. coli after 18 h incubation at 37 °C. (A): Ampicillin 2 μg disk (1), Ps low concentration disks (2–4) with S.aureus ATCC® 29213™; (B): Ampicillin 2 μg disk (1), Ps high concentration disks (2–4) with S.aureus ATCC® 29213™; (C): Ampicillin 10 μg disk (1), Ps low concentration disks (2–4) with E.coli ATCC® 25922™; (D): Ampicillin 10 μg disk (1), Ps high concentration disks (2–4) with E.coli ATCC® 25922™.
Inhibition zone measurements of S. aureus and E. coli obtained with different Ps concentrations and ampicillin (2 and 10 μg).
| Inhibition Zone (mm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | SA † | Ps ‡ Low | Ps High | Ampicillin 2 | Ampicillin 10 |
|
| 0 | 15.00 ± 1.1 | 13.00 ± 1.0 | 18.00 ± 1.0 | NA |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 19.00 ± 1.1 |
† SA, sodium alginate; ‡ Ps, propolis.
Figure 7Results of the cytotoxicity test: cell populations calculated relative to the negative control show that extracts obtained with the SA scaffolds are non-cytotoxic for the concentrations tested and extracts obtained with the Ps-containing scaffolds are severely cytotoxic for concentrations of 1.25 mg/mL and above but become non-cytotoxic at concentrations of 0.08 mg/mL and below.