| Literature DB >> 34917592 |
Abstract
The final biochemical and mechanical performance of an implant or scaffold are defined by its structure, as well as the raw materials and processing conditions used during its fabrication. Electrospinning and Additive Manufacturing (AM) are two contrasting processing technologies that have gained popularity amongst the fields of medical research i.e., tissue engineering, implant design, drug delivery. Electrospinning technology is favored for its ability to produce micro- to nanometer fibers from polymer solutions and melts, of which, the dimensions, alignment, porosity, and chemical composition are easily manipulatable to the desired application. AM, on the other hand, offers unrivalled levels of geometrical freedom, allowing highly complex components (i.e., patient-specific) to be built inexpensively within 24 hours. Hence, adopting both technologies together appears to be a progressive step in pursuit of scaffolds that better match the natural architecture of human tissues. Here, we present recent insights into the advances on hybrid scaffolds produced by combining electrospinning (melt electrospinning excluded) and AM, specifically multi-layered architectures consisting of alternating fibers and AM elements, and bioinks reinforced with fibers prior to AM. We discuss how cellular behavior (attachment, migration, and differentiation) is influenced by the co-existence of these micro- and nano-features.Entities:
Keywords: additive manufactuing; electrospininng; hybrid scaffolds; nanofibers; tissue engineering
Year: 2021 PMID: 34917592 PMCID: PMC8670169 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.674738
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Schematic representation of the two fabrication approaches that combine electrospinning and 3D printing (elements not in scale). (A) Deposition of electrospun nanofibers onto one side of a 3D printed element that is placed in contact with the metallic collector of the electrospinning apparatus. Inset: 3D printed layer covered with a low-density layer of electrospun fibers. (B) 3D printing head depositing a polymeric ink reinforced with electrospun fibers. Inset: composite 3D printed structure where nanofibers are encapsulated within the struts.
FIGURE 2(A) hADSCs seeding efficiency of the following types of 3D printed PCL scaffolds (4 h of incubation): without electrospun fibers (PCL); with electrospun fibers deposited at 0 rpm for 45 s (PLR); with electrospun fibers deposited at 0 rpm for 120 s (PHR); with electrospun fibers deposited at 1,000 rpm for 120 s (PL1000); with electrospun fibers deposited at 1,000 rpm for 360 s (PH1000). (B) Number of hADSCs detected on the five types of scaffolds at 4, 72 and 168 h of cell culture test. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of (C) PCL scaffold, (D) PHR scaffold and (E) PH1000 scaffold after 1 day of cell culture. The SEM images show cells attached on the structures of the scaffolds and the alignment of the cytoskeleton when aligned nanofibers are present. Reprinted from (Huang et al., 2020).