| Literature DB >> 35761932 |
Dian Xu1,2, Zexian Xu1,2, Lidi Cheng1,2, Xiaohan Gao1,2, Jian Sun1,2,3,4, Liqiang Chen1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Porous bone scaffolds based on high-precision 3D printing technology gave recently been developed for use in bone defect repair. However, conventional scaffold materials have poor mechanical properties and low osteogenic activity, limiting their clinical use. In this study, a porous composite tissue-engineered bone scaffold was prepared using polylactic acid, nano-hydroxyapatite, and nano-magnesium oxide as raw materials for high-precision 3D printing. The composite scaffold takes full advantage of the personalized manufacturing features of 3D printers and can be used to repair complex bone defects in clinical settings. The composite scaffold combines the advantages of nano-hydroxyapatite, which improves the formability of scaffold printing, and of nano-magnesium oxide, which regulates pH during degradation and provide a good environment for cell growth. Additionally, nano-magnesium oxide and nano-hydroxyapatite have a bidirectional effect on promoting the compressive strength and osteogenic activity of the scaffolds. The prepared composite porous scaffolds based on 3D printing technology show promise for bone defect repair.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; Crystallinity; Osteogenesis; PLA; Tissue engineering scaffold; nHA; nMgO
Year: 2022 PMID: 35761932 PMCID: PMC9233213 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09748
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Formulation composition of 3D printing composite consumables.
| Samples | PLA(wt%) | nHA(wt%) | nMgO(wt%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| PLA/nHA | 80 | 20 | 0 |
| PLA/nHA/nMgO | 77.6 | 19.4 | 3 |
Figure 1Schematic diagram of a personalized tissue-engineered bone composite scaffold using 3D printing technology.
Figure 2Composite bracket actual photo (A); Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observed the surface morphology of three groups of seed scaffolds (B).
Figure 3Fourier transform infrared spectrometer FTIR spectra of composite supports and raw materials (A); X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra of composite supports and raw materials (B). Water contact angle of three groups of scaffolds (C).
Figure 4Compressive stress-strain curve of each group of scaffolds (A); Yield strength of each group of scaffolds (B).
Figure 5Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) non-isothermal crystallization curve (A); Crystallinity curve (B); Melting Curve (C).
The thermal performance parameters of PLA, PLA/nHA and PLA/nHA/nMgO were determined by differential scanning calorimetry.
| Sample | Tm (°C) | Tc (°C) | ΔHm (J/g) | ΔHc (J/g) | Xc (%) | t1/2 (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | 111.1 | 70.5 | 8.55 | 71.31 | 56.70 | 14.50 |
| PLA/nHA | 111.7 | 72.9 | 8.92 | 56.23 | 70.35 | 14.36 |
| PLA/nHA/nMgO | 111.8 | 75.6 | 6.69 | 45.6 | 50.40 | 14.22 |
Figure 6Weight loss (A) and PH change (B) of each group of scaffold immersion.
Figure 7Fluorescence images (A) of MC3T3-E1 cells and optical density obtained by CCK-8 analysis (B).
Figure 8The ALP staining (A) and activity (C) after MC3T3-E1 cells cultured for 7 and 14 days; Alizarin red staining (B) and OD values (D) after 21 days of incubation (B).