| Literature DB >> 34070229 |
Ricardo Donate1, María Elena Alemán-Domínguez1, Mario Monzón1.
Abstract
Surface modification of 3D-printed PLA structures is a major issue in terms of increasing the biofunctionality and expanding the tissue engineering applications of these parts. In this paper, different exposure times were used for low-pressure oxygen plasma applied to PLA 3D-printed scaffolds. Alkali surface treatments were also evaluated, aiming to compare the modifications introduced on the surface properties by each strategy. Surface-treated samples were characterized through the quantification of carboxyl groups, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, water contact angle measurements, and differential scanning calorimetry analysis. The change in the surface properties was studied over a two-week period. In addition, an enzymatic degradation analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of the surface treatments on the degradation profile of the 3D structures. The physicochemical characterization results suggest different mechanism pathways for each type of treatment. Alkali-treated scaffolds showed a higher concentration of carboxyl groups on their surface, which enhanced the enzymatic degradation rate, but were also proven to be more aggressive towards 3D-printed structures. In contrast, the application of the plasma treatments led to an increased hydrophilicity of the PLA surface without affecting the bulk properties. However, the changes on the properties were less steady over time.Entities:
Keywords: additive manufacturing; biomedical applications; enzymatic degradation; low-pressure plasma; plasma treatment; polymer; surface modification; toluidine blue method
Year: 2021 PMID: 34070229 PMCID: PMC8158707 DOI: 10.3390/polym13101643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Weight loss (%) due to the application of the different surface treatments evaluated.
| Group of Samples | %Weight Loss |
|---|---|
| PLASMA 1 min | 0.01 ± 0.02 |
| PLASMA 10 min | 0.21 ± 0.02 |
| 0.2 N NaOH | 1.93 ± 0.11 |
| 1 N NaOH | 5.85 ± 0.25 1 |
| 0.2 N NaOH + citric acid | 2.08 ± 0.12 2 |
1 p < 0.05 compared with PLASMA 10 min and p < 0.01 compared with PLASMA 1 min. 2 p < 0.05 compared with PLASMA 1 min.
Figure 1Physicochemical characterization of surface-treated samples by the Toluidine Blue O (TBO) test. * p < 0.05.
Figure 2Physicochemical characterization of surface-treated samples by EDX analysis. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01.
Figure 3Water contact angle (WCA) measurements of surface-treated samples.
DSC results of all groups of samples on day of treatment (a) and two weeks later (b).
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PLA | 63.5 ± 1.2 | 167.0 ± 3.2 | 176.0 ± 0.1 | 47.0 ± 1.5 | 50.1 ± 1.6 |
| PLASMA 1 min | 64.2 ± 0.6 | 169.0 ± 0.1 | 175.6 ± 0.2 | 46.8 ± 1.5 | 50.0 ± 1.6 |
| PLASMA 10 min | 64.4 ± 0.5 | 169.3 ± 0.2 | 175.6 ± 0.1 2 | 49.5 ± 1.1 | 52.9 ± 1.2 |
| 0.2 N NaOH | 61.5 ± 0.6 | 169.7 ± 1.2 | 175.9 ± 0.1 | 50.5 ± 1.4 3 | 53.9 ± 2.4 4 |
| 1 N NaOH | 60.3 ± 0.6 1 | 169.5 ± 1.2 | 175.7 ± 0.1 | 50.3 ± 1.4 | 53.6 ± 2.7 |
| 0.2 NaOH + citric acid | 63.4 ± 0.6 | 164.8 ± 1.2 | 175.7 ± 0.1 | 48.8 ± 1.4 | 52.1 ± 2.1 |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PLA | 63.5 ± 1.2 | 167.0 ± 3.2 | 176.0 ± 0.1 | 47.0 ± 1.5 | 50.1 ± 1.6 |
| PLASMA 1 min | 63.9 ± 0.2 | 169.2 ± 0.2 | 176.3 ± 0.1 * | 47.1 ± 3.0 | 49.6 ± 2.1 |
| PLASMA 10 min | 63.8 ± 0.4 | 169.3 ± 0.3 | 176.0 ± 0.1 * | 47.8 ± 2.9 | 51.0 ± 3.1 |
| 0.2 N NaOH | 63.4 ± 0.4 * | 167.8 ± 2.3 | 176.1 ± 0.1 * | 50.9 ± 0.9 | 54.3 ± 0.9 |
| 1 N NaOH | 63.2 ± 0.9 * | 168.0 ± 2.4 | 176.0 ± 0.1 * | 46.4 ± 2.0 * | 49.6 ± 2.1 |
| 0.2 NaOH + citric acid | 63.5 ± 0.2 | 166.0 ± 2.3 | 175.8 ± 0.1 1 | 49.2 ± 2.8 | 52.5 ± 3.0 |
(a) 1 p < 0.01 compared with PLASMA 10 min and p < 0.05 compared with PLASMA 1 min. 2 p < 0.05 compared with PLA. 3 p < 0.05 compared with PLASMA 1 min. 4 p < 0.05 compared with PLA and PLASMA 1 min. (b) * p < 0.05 compared with result at day 0. 1 p < 0.01 compared with PLASMA 1 min.
Figure 4Enzymatic degradation test results of surface-treated samples: % weight loss after five days. * p < 0.05.
Figure 5Enzymatic degradation test results of surface-treated samples: pH variation.
Porosity values (before and after the degradation test) and compression test results.
| Group of Samples | Initial Porosity (%) | Final Porosity (%) | Elastic Modulus (MPa) | Compressive Yield Strength (MPa) | Compression Strength (MPa) | Strain at Maximum Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC (compression test) | 83.6 ± 7.9 | 7.2 ± 1.0 | - | - | ||
| PLA | 55.5 ± 2.9 | 58.0 ± 3.0 | 81.0 ± 10.7 | 7.0 ± 1.5 | 9.7 ± 2.0 | 0.24 ± 0.07 |
| PLASMA 1 min | 56.0 ± 2.5 | 59.0 ± 2.1 | 72.7 ± 4.9 | 6.5 ± 1.7 | 9.9 ± 2.9 | 0.27 ± 0.04 |
| PLASMA 10 min | 56.1 ± 1.6 | 58.8 ± 1.5 | 73.7 ± 13.3 | 6.6 ± 1.4 | 9.2 ± 1.9 | 0.24 ± 0.03 |
| NaOH 0.2 N | 55.9 ± 1.8 | 60.1 ± 1.7 * | 69.2 ± 13.5 | 6.9 ± 1.5 | 8.9 ± 0.9 | 0.23 ± 0.04 |
| NaOH 1 N | 58.8 ± 0.9 | 61.7 ± 1.6 * | 67.7 ± 8.4 | 6.0 ± 0.8 | 8.4 ± 1.1 | 0.25 ± 0.01 |
| NaOH 0.2 N + citric acid | 56.4 ± 2.4 | 60.8 ± 2.3 | 63.2 ± 7.5 | 5.2 ± 0.8 | 8.2 ± 1.8 | 0.26 ± 0.02 |
* p < 0.05 compared with initial porosity of this group.
Figure 6Enzymatic degradation test results of surface-treated samples: conductivity variation.
Results of the one-day enzymatic degradation test.
| Group of Samples | Weight Loss (%) | pH | Conductivity (mS) | Initial Porosity (%) | Final Porosity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 7.56 ± 0.01 | 2.00 ± 0.01 | 44.1 ± 3.8 | 43.1 ± 2.2 |
| NaOH 0.2 N + citric acid | 1.37 ± 0.11 1 | 4.57 ± 0.01 1 | 2.41 ± 0.01 1 | 41.0 ± 1.3 | 44.2 ± 2.8 |
1 p < 0.05 compared with PLA.