| Literature DB >> 34307346 |
Rayan Fairag1,2,3, Li Li1,2, Jose Luis Ramirez-GarciaLuna1, M Scott Taylor4, Brian Gaerke4, Michael H Weber1,2, Derek H Rosenzweig1,2, Lisbet Haglund1,2,5.
Abstract
Orlass="Chemical">thopedic <lass="Chemical">span class="Disease">tumor resection, trauma, or degenerative disease surgeries can result in large bone defects and often require bone grafting. However, standard autologous bone grafting has been associated with donor site morbidity and/or limited quantity. As an alternate, allografts with or without metallic or polyether-etherketone have been used as grafting substitutes. However, these may have drawbacks as well, including stress shielding, pseudarthrosis, disease-transmission, and infection. There is therefore a need for alternative bone substitutes, such as the use of mechanically compliant three-dimensional (3D)-printed scaffolds. Several off-the-shelf materials are available for low-cost fused deposition 3D printing such as polylactic acid (PLA) and polycaprolactone (PCL). We have previously described the feasibility of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds to support cell activity and extracellular matrix deposition. In this study, we investigate two medical-grade filaments consistent with specifications found in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for semi-crystalline polylactide polymers for surgical implants, a pure polymer (100M) and a copolymeric material (7415) for their cytocompatibility and suitability in bone tissue engineering. Moreover, we assessed the impact on osteo-inductive properties with the addition of beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) minerals and assessed their mechanical properties. 100M and 7415 scaffolds with the additive β-TCP demonstrated superior mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) differentiation detected via increased alkaline phosphatase activity (6-fold and 1.5-fold, respectively) and mineralized matrix deposition (14-fold and 5-fold, respectively) in vitro. Furthermore, we evaluated in vivo compatibility, biosafety and bone repair potential in a rat femur window defect model. 100M+β -TCP implants displayed a positive biosafety profile and showed significantly enhanced new bone formation compared to 100M implants evidenced by μCT (39 versus 25% bone volume/tissue volume ratio) and histological analysis 6 weeks post-implantation. These scaffolds are encouraging composite biomaterials for repairing bone applications with a great potential for clinical translation. Further analyses are required with appropriate evaluation in a larger critical-sized defect animal model with long-term follow-up.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; bone repair; bone substitute; composite; scaffold; β-TCP
Year: 2021 PMID: 34307346 PMCID: PMC8299729 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.654518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
Composite profiling.
| Material | DSC | GPC | IV, dL/g | GC | ||||||
| T | T | ΔH | T | ΔH | M | M | PDI | Total residual monomer, % | ||
| 100M | 70.2 | 118.7 | 32.8 | 182.6 | 32.9 | 110,139 | 189,981 | 1.72 | 1.59 | 0.20 |
| 100M+β- | 70.6 | 112.0 | 22.9 | 182.6 | 29.0 | 101,005 | 155,933 | 1.54 | 1.24 | 0.05 |
| 7415 | No peak | 90.9 | 6.5 | 165.9 | 23.2 | 27,816 | 65,133 | 2.34 | 0.58 | 0.09 |
| 7415+β- | 51.5 | 88.0 | 7.0 | 165.9 | 14.7 | 61,638 | 114,838 | 1.86 | 0.96 | 0.32 |
FIGURE 1Scaffold fabrication. (A) Illustrated charts representing the total composition of 100M scaffolds and 7415 scaffolds. (B) Scaffolds professional images. Marker represent 1 cm dimensions. (C) Graph showing the differences in the dry weights of materials after printing, n = 3, error bars represent ±SD, and *P-value < 0.05, ***P-value < 0.001. (D) Circular scaffold design for testing surface characteristics of materials.
FIGURE 2Surface morphology of scaffolds with and without cells. (A) Scanning electron microscopy of empty scaffolds. Representative SEM images at 80× and 1500× magnifications and scale bars represents 5 mm, 250 μm (n = 3). (B) Cell-seeded scaffolds were clearly covered with matrix deposition after 21 days of culture at 200× and 6000×x magnifications and scale bars represents 500, 20 μm (n = 3).
FIGURE 3Scaffold characterization. (A) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy graph of 100M+β- and 7415+β- showing the surface atomic percentage of calcium phosphate normalized to 100M and 7415, respectively. (B) Contact Angle test represents surface wettability of the materials at 0 s and after 30 s. n = 3, error bars represent ±SD, and *P-value < 0.05. (C) Degradation profile of all materials represents the percentage of weight loss after 21 days of soaking in Tris–HCl. n = 3, error bars represent ±SD, and *P-value < 0.05.
FIGURE 4Mechanical properties of novel 3D printed scaffolds. (A) Young’s modulus representing 5–10% compressive stress/strain curves of printed, acellular scaffolds. For each set, n = 3, error bars represent ±SD (P-value < 0.0001). (B) Representative stress/strain curves of all materials showing the amount of deformation, elastic (proportionality) limit and plastic region. For each set, n = 3. ****p < 0.0001.
FIGURE 5Quantification of DNA and cell distribution. (A) Graph represents the attachment ratio quantifications of cell-seeded into each scaffold (n = 3 in triplicate), error bars represent ±SD, and ***P-value < 0.001. (B) Proliferation graph present number of cells in each scaffold after 21 days in standard and osteogenic culture (n = 3), error bars represent ±SD, and *P-value < 0.05, **P-value < 0.01, ***P-value < 0.001. (C) Representative maximum intensity projection images showing scaffolds seeded with labeled cells after 1 week in osteogenic culture using confocal microscopy. Accordingly, 2.5D rendering images using (Zeiss Zen software) presenting the middle of the scaffold (2 mm Z-axis) (n = 3).
FIGURE 6Mineralized matrix deposition. (A) Representative image of fixed scaffolds seeded with BM-MSC stained with Alizarin Red-S stain after 21 days culture (n = 3 independent experiments). Marker represent 10 × 10 mm squares dimensions. (B) Stain quantification using Alizarin Red osteogenesis kit representing measurements of ARS concentrations of osteogenic culture normalized to standard culture (n = 3), error bars represent ±SD, and *P-value < 0.05. (C) Alkaline phosphatase activity assay measurements represent ALP concentrations of osteogenic culture normalized to standard culture (n = 3), error bars represent ±SD, and *P-value < 0.05, **P-value < 0.001.
FIGURE 7Surgical procedure. (A) A total of 6 mm × 2 mm window defect was created by connecting three circular defects using 1.9 drill bur. Scaffold was implanted inside the defect and suture was applied to stabilize the scaffold. (B) Representative image of pre-implanted and 6 weeks post-implanted femur with the marker representing 10 mm × 10 mm square.
Hematology and biochemistry blood analysis.
| 100 M | 100 M+
β–TCP | |||||
| Laboratory test | Unit | Normal range | Pre-implantation value | Post-implantation value | Pre-implantation value | Post-implantation value |
| RBC | 10″6/ul | 7.27–9.65 | 9.75 | 8.93 | 9.47 | 9.35 |
| WBC | 10″3/ul | 5.5–11 | 11.6 | 12.9 | 12.4 | 11.89 |
| Platelets | 10″3/ul | 300–750 | 1038 | 1043 | 975 | 955 |
| Hemoglobin | g/dl | 13.7–17.6 | 15.6 | 15.6 | 15.84 | 15.82 |
| Hematocrit | % | 41–50 | 45.8 | 49.71 | 45.66 | 43.81 |
| MCV | fl | 57–68 | 55 | 52 | 52 | 55 |
| MCH | pg | 19–22 | 27.2 | 26.7 | 20.7 | 21.1 |
| MCHC | g/dl | 32.9–37.5 | 32.4 | 34.7 | 33.3 | 37.1 |
| Total Protein | g/L | 53–69 | 66 | 64 | 51 | 53 |
| Albumin | g/L | 38–48 | 38 | 41 | 45 | 45 |
| BUN | mmol/L | 3.2–7.5 | 6.8 | 6.4 | 7.1 | 7.4 |
| Cr | μmol/L | 50–73 | 24 | 31 | 56 | 53 |
| ALT | U/L | 20–61 | 40 | 34 | 58 | 55 |
| AST | U/L | 39–111 | 112 | 89 | 174 | 161 |
| ALP | U/L | 16–302 | 182 | 201 | 150 | 174 |
| GGT | U/L | 0–6 | <10 | <10 | <10 | <10 |
FIGURE 8μCT ROI selection. A ROI measuring 4 mm long × 2 mm wide × 2 mm deep was delineated in the middle of the scaffold implant area (red box). Mineralized tissue and the scaffold were segmented by using different threshold values. Mineralized tissue content was quantified in the ROI. Arrowheads in (A) represent the edge of the defect, P: proximal, D: distal, dashed line represents the trans-axial section in (B). (C) Reconstructed image representing defect area after 6 weeks implantation with 100M+β-. (D) Reconstructed image of the defect area after 6 weeks of 100M implantation. (E) Reconstructed image of fractured femur implanted with 100M scaffold. (F) μCT quantitative analysis of (BV/TV) (n = 8), error bars represent ±SD, and ***P-value < 0.001.
μCT quantification.
| Value | 100M | 100M+β- | |
| BV | 4.11 ± 0.84 | 6.85 ± 0.53 | 0.04 |
| BV/TV | 25.46 ± 5.22 | 38.65 ± 3.21 | 0.0006 |
| Tb.Th | 165.06 ± 25.49 | 225.82 ± 25.78 | 0.07 |
| Tb.Sp | 747.12 ± 142.79 | 460.05 ± 75 | 0.04 |
| Tb.N | 1.53 ± 0.14 | 2.10 ± 0.35 | 0.02 |
| Po.N.cl | 1691.25 ± 326.51 | 2796.14 ± 608.33 | 0.05 |
| Po.Tot | 71.53 ± 5.22 | 60.02 ± 3.89 | 0.07 |
| Conn.Dn | 2.38 ± 0.51 | 11.70 ± 0.54 | 0.01 |
FIGURE 9Histological evaluation of implanted scaffolds. Histological sections of un-decalcified bone stained with Von Kossa and toluidine blue (VK/TB) to distinguish mineralized (black) from un-mineralized tissue (blue) were prepared (top panels). Representative mid-sagittal images show mineralized tissue surrounding the implants and inside of their pores (asterisks). In line with the micro-CT findings, a greater quantity of mineralized tissue was observed surrounding the 100M+β- implanted scaffolds. Paragon staining (lower panels) showed significantly higher osteoid content in the interface between mineralized tissue and scaffold (dark pink line, arrowheads). Images were obtained at 2.5× magnification and are representative of N = 8 100M and N = 16 100M+β- scaffolds at 6 weeks post-implantation.
FIGURE 10High magnification evaluation of implanted scaffolds. High magnification images of Von Kossa/Toluidine blue (A–F) and paragon staining (G–L) confirmed an increase in osteoid content in the 100M+β- implanted scaffolds in the interface between mineralized tissue and scaffold. Osteoid and structures resembling vascular channels were even found inside of the 100M+β- implant (E,L), as well as a periosteal-like structure covering it (asterisk). Taken together, these findings strongly suggest that the 100M+β- implant is invaded by cells that are able to proliferate inside of its filaments, thereby promoting an adequate environment to foster tissue regeneration. The granular appearance of the scaffold is due to its β-TCP content. In contrast, limited tissue ingrowth and neither a periosteal-like membrane or blood vessels were found in 100M scaffolds. Images were obtained at 10× (A,B,G,H) or 40× magnification (C–F,I–L) and are representative of N = 8 100M and N = 16 100M+β- scaffolds at 6 weeks post-implantation.