| Literature DB >> 35832405 |
Abshar Hasan1,2,3, Romain Bagnol4, Robert Owen1,2, Arsalan Latif5, Hassan M Rostam5, Sherif Elsharkawy6, Felicity R A J Rose1,2, José Carlos Rodríguez-Cabello7, Amir M Ghaemmaghami5, David Eglin4,8, Alvaro Mata1,2,3.
Abstract
Design and fabrication of implants that can perform better than autologous bone grafts remain an unmet challenge for the hard tissue regeneration in craniomaxillofacial applications. Here, we report an integrated approach combining additive manufacturing with supramolecular chemistry to develop acellular mineralizing 3D printed scaffolds for hard tissue regeneration. Our approach relies on an elastin-like recombinamer (ELR) coating designed to trigger and guide the growth of ordered apatite on the surface of 3D printed nylon scaffolds. Three test samples including a) uncoated nylon scaffolds (referred to as "Uncoated"), b) ELR coated scaffolds (referred to as "ELR only"), and c) ELR coated and in vitro mineralized scaffolds (referred to as "Pre-mineralized") were prepared and tested for in vitro and in vivo performance. All test samples supported normal human immortalized mesenchymal stem cell adhesion, growth, and differentiation with enhanced cell proliferation observed in the "Pre-mineralized" samples. Using a rabbit calvarial in vivo model, 'Pre-mineralized' scaffolds also exhibited higher bone ingrowth into scaffold pores and cavities with higher tissue-implant integration. However, the coated scaffolds ("ELR only" and "Pre-mineralized") did not exhibit significantly more new bone formation compared to "Uncoated" scaffolds. Overall, the mineralizing coating offers an opportunity to enhance integration of 3D printed bone implants. However, there is a need to further decipher and tune their immunologic response to develop truly osteoinductive/conductive surfaces.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; biomineralization; bone regeneration; elastin-like recombinamers; nylon; tissueimplant integration
Year: 2022 PMID: 35832405 PMCID: PMC9271852 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.836386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1(A) Architecture of 3D printed nylon scaffold, (B) FTIR spectra showing the transition of secondary structure of the ELR from disordered (random) to ordered (β-sheet) due to solvent evaporation and crosslinking, (C) SEM micrographs showing mineralized structures with needle-shaped topography emerging after 14 days of scaffold mineralization, and physical characterization of the mineralized coating using (D) FTIR, and (E) XRD indicating formation of apatite mineral.
FIGURE 2In vitro characterization. (A) Metabolic activity, (B) total DNA, (C) total ALP, and (D) normalized ALP activity of hiMSCs on different test samples. (E) SEM micrographs of hiMSCs after 5 days of culture on “Pre-mineralized” samples depicting cell protrusions (as pointed by arrow heads) that indicate cell spreading and migration, and fluorescence microscopic images of hiMSCs cultured for 5 days on (F) “Pre-mineralized,” and (G) “ELR only” coated samples. Data presented at mean ± SD (n = 6). In (B) * represents significant difference p < 0.05 between “Uncoated” and “Pre-mineralized” scaffold, estimated using one-way ANOVA in GraphPad Prism ver. 6 software.
FIGURE 3In vivo characterization. (A) Schematic of the study plan and view of the rabbit calvarial bone defect before and after implantation. Micro CT images of new bone formation in [(B), left] the positive control (Bio-Oss) and [(B), right] “Pre-mineralized” scaffold and [(C), left] “ELR only” and [(C), right] “Uncoated” scaffolds. (D) Normalized volume of newly formed bone with different test samples after 0, 3, and 6 weeks of implantation. Histological sections stained with Giemsa-Eosin depicting new bone formation marked with green colour after 6 weeks of implantation including (E) positive control (Bio-Oss), (F) “Uncoated” nylon scaffold, (G) “ELR only” coated nylon scaffold, and (H) “Pre-mineralized” scaffold. Scaffold (SC), Fibrous connective tissue (FCT), Immature (IB) and Mature (MB) bone. In (D) * represents significant difference p < 0.05 in normalized bone volume between sample groups and at different time points, estimated using two-way ANOVA in GraphPad Prism ver. 6 software.
FIGURE 4Histological sections stained with Giemsa-Eosin depicting (A) osseous interaction with the implant at the bone-implant interface, (B) bone ingrowth into small pores and cavities of the scaffolds, and (C) lymphocytic inflammation with infiltrating cells (arrow heads) primarily around “ELR only” coating and “Pre-mineralized” scaffolds. Newly formed bone in the histology images have been pseudo colored and represented with green to show clear difference between immature (new) bone and scaffold. Scale bar = 200 µm. Scaffold (SC), Immature bone (IB), Lymphocytic inflammation (LI). (D) Estimation of IL-10 concentrations secreted from macrophages after 3 and 6 days of culture on different test samples. * represents significant difference p < 0.005, estimated using two-way ANOVA in GraphPad Prism ver. 6 software.