| Literature DB >> 35898639 |
Jian Han1,2, Zehua Li1,2, Yuxuan Sun2, Fajun Cheng1,3, Lei Zhu1, Yaoyao Zhang1,2, Zirui Zhang4, Jinzhe Wu5, Junfeng Wang1,2,3,6.
Abstract
Three-dimensional porous polycaprolactone (PCL) bone scaffolds prepared by selective laser sintering (SLS) have demonstrated great potential in the repair of non-load-bearing bone defects. The microgeometry and surface roughness of PCL scaffolds during the SLS process may change the biocompatibility and bioactivity of the scaffolds. However, in addition to the widely concerned mechanical properties and structural accuracy of scaffolds, there is still a lack of systematic research on how SLS process parameters affect the surface roughness of PCL scaffolds and the relationship between roughness and biocompatibility of scaffolds. In this study, we use the energy density model (EDM) combined with the thermodynamic properties of PCL powder to calculate the energy density range (Ed1-Ed3) suitable for PCL sintering. Five PCL scaffolds with different laser powers and scanning speeds were prepared; their dimensional accuracy, mechanical strength, and surface properties were comprehensively evaluated, and the bioactivities were compared through the attachment and proliferation of MC3T3-E1 cells on the scaffolds. It was found that the high energy density (Ed3) reduced the shape fidelity related to pore size and porosity, and the dense and smooth surface of the scaffolds showed poor cytocompatibility, while the low energy density (Ed1) resulted in weak mechanical properties, but the rough surface caused by incomplete sintered PCL particles facilitated the cell adhesion and proliferation. Therefore, the surface roughness and related biocompatibility of PCL bone scaffolds should be considered in energy-density-guided SLS parameter optimization.Entities:
Keywords: biocompatibility; energy density model; polycaprolactone; selective laser sintering; surface roughness
Year: 2022 PMID: 35898639 PMCID: PMC9309791 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.888267
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1The Schematic diagram of this work.
FIGURE 2The 3D model of the porous scaffold for SLS.
Parameters of the 3D porous scaffold model.
| Parameters of the 3D porous scaffold model | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H (mm) | W (mm) | L (mm) | L1 (mm) | L2 (mm) | L3 (mm) | L4 (mm) | Porosity (%) |
| 12.0 | 17.0 | 27.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 45.75 |
FIGURE 3The Properties of PCL powder. (A) SEM image and (B) size distribution of PCL powders; (C) DSC and TGA analysis of PCL powder. The endo- and exothermal heat flow of PCL powders was characterized by heating and cooling from 0°C to 200°C at the rate of 10°C/min. The weight ratio of PCL decomposition started from 0°C to 600°C at the rate of 10°C/min. The stable sintering region (SSR) is indicated from the onset of melting to the onset (1%) of decomposition. (D) Plot of the temperature-dependent specific heat capacity of PCL powders from 0°C to 200°C. (E) Linear fitting of heat capacity with temperature from melting initiation to the melting point. (F) Linear fitting of heat capacity with temperature from the melting point to the recrystallization temperature.
Material properties of PCL powders.
| Material properties | Value |
|---|---|
| Specific heat ( | C = 0.0227e0.1059T, (30–65°C) C = 0.0034 T + 1.400, (65°C–277°C) |
| Melting temperature ( | 52.96 |
| Onset melting temperature ( | 38.0 |
| Offset melting temperature ( | 65.22 |
| Onset decomposing temperature ( | 276.5 |
| Modified density (ρ∗, g/cm3) | 1.1–7.81 × 10−4T + 0.519 × 10−6T2 |
| Packing fraction (ϕ) | 0.4 |
| Light absorptivity (α, %) at 10.6 μm | 0.9 |
Evaluations of E mv, E dv, and E d of PCL powders.
| Energy parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Volume energy for melting ( | 0.090 |
| Volume energy before decomposition ( | 0.184 |
| Energy input range of laser ( | 0.100–0.204 |
Main SLS process parameters of PCL scaffolds in this study.
| Energy density | SLS process parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ed (J/mm3) | P (W) | V (mm/s) | D (mm) | H (mm) |
| Ed1 (0.089) | 2 | 1,500 | 0.1 | 0.15 |
| Ed21 (0.178) | 2 | 750 | 0.1 | 0.15 |
| Ed22 (0.178) | 4 | 1,500 | 0.1 | 0.15 |
| Ed23 (0.178) | 6 | 2,250 | 0.1 | 0.15 |
| Ed3 (0.267) | 6 | 1,500 | 0.1 | 0.15 |
FIGURE 4Characterizations of five kinds PCL scaffolds with different SLS parameters. (A) Photo of SLS-fabricated PCL scaffolds, (B) horizontal pore area, (C) porosity, (D) mass, (E) stress–strain curves, (F) maximum compressive strength, (G) water absorption, and (H) cross-section SEM images of scaffolds.
FIGURE 5Characterizations of SR with different SLS parameters. (A) Surface SEM images of scaffolds; (B) 3D morphology; (C) Sa and (D) Sq statistical of the samples’ surface.
FIGURE 6Qualitative analysis of in vitro biological properties of scaffolds. (A) Fluorescence images of GFP adsorption on the surface of scaffolds after 24 h. (B) Confocal laser images of MC3T3-E1 cells growing on the surface of scaffolds for 1, 3, and 5 days after live/death staining.
FIGURE 7Quantitative analysis of in vitro biological characteristics of scaffolds. (A) Absorbance value at 450 nm of different amounts of MC3T3-E1 cells. (B) Proliferation activity of the adhered MC3T3-E1 cells on different scaffolds after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days of incubation, detected by the CCK8 assay. (n = 7, error bar represents the mean ± SD, * indicates a significant difference compared with Ed1, p < 0.05).