| Literature DB >> 36015548 |
Ahmad Jabir Rahyussalim1,2,3, Dina Aprilya1, Raden Handidwiono1, Yudan Whulanza4,5, Ghiska Ramahdita6, Tri Kurniawati2,3.
Abstract
Several types of laminoplasty spacer have been used to fill bone gaps and maintain a widened canal. A 3D scaffold can be used as an alternative spacer to minimize the risk observed in allografts or autografts. This study aims to evaluate the in vivo biocompatibility and tissue-scaffold integration of a polylactic acid (PLA) scaffold with the addition of alginate/hydroxyapatite (HA) and mesenchymal stem cell (MSc) injections. This is an experimental study with a pretest and post-test control group design. A total of 15 laminoplasty rabbit models were divided into five groups with variations in the autograft, PLA, HA/alginate, and MSc scaffold. In general, there were no signs of inflammation in most samples (47%), and there were no samples with areas of necrosis. There were no significant differences in the histopathological results and microstructural assessment between the five groups. This demonstrates that the synthetic scaffolds that we used had a similar tissue reaction and tissue integration profile as the autograft (p > 0.05). We recommend further translational studies in humans so that this biocompatible fabricated scaffold can be used to fill bone defects.Entities:
Keywords: alginate; hydroxyapatite; laminoplasty; mesenchymal stem cells; polylactic acid; scaffold; spacer
Year: 2022 PMID: 36015548 PMCID: PMC9416571 DOI: 10.3390/polym14163292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1(a) Six-layer 3D PLA scaffold; (b) post hydroxyapatite (HA)/alginate composite injection to six-layer 3D PLA scaffold.
Figure 2Pre-operative and post-operative ESR comparison among groups.
Figure 3Distribution of histological tissue reaction grading: 47% of samples were at grade 1; 7% at grade 2; 33% at grade 3, 13% at grade 4, and 0% at grade 5.
Figure 4Result of thermal characterization using (a) Differential Scanning Calorimetry and Thermal Gravimetric Analysis for PLA. (b) Thermaogravimetry Analysis for PLA.
Figure 5(a) The crystalline phase and molecular interaction and (b) Fourier Transform infrared wave spectrum of PLA.
Figure 6Microstructure and porosity evaluation with scanning electron microscope and ImageJ tools 12 weeks after implantation showed tissue integration with scaffolds: (1–3) Group 1 (autograft), (4–6) Group 2 (PLA), (7–9) Group 3 (PLA + HA/alginate), (10–12) Group 4 (PLA + MSc) and (13–15) Group 5 (PLA + HA/alginate + MSc).
Porosity distribution among groups.
| Variable Porosity (%) | Value (Mean ± SD) |
|---|---|
| Group 1 | 39.67 ± 18.34 |
| Group 2 | 28.67 ± 25.01 |
| Group 3 | 22.67 ± 20.52 |
| Group 4 | 28 ± 18.34 |
| Group 5 | 15 ± 15 |
Comparison of a similar study.
| Type of Scaffolds | Line Width | Porosity (%) | Elastic Modulus | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D-printed PLA-HA-alginate | 400 µm | 40–60% | 90 MPa | This work |
| 3D-printed PLA-gelatin-forsterite | 500 µm | 39 | 112 MPa | Naghieh 2017 [ |
| FDM PLA | NA | NA | 246 MPa | Nascimento 2021 [ |
| 3D-printed PCL | NA | NA | 30 MPa | Schipani 2019 [ |
| 3D-printed PLA | 100–400 µm | 70–30 | 50–600 MPa | Baptista 2021 [ |
| PLA-HA | 150 µm | NA | 24 MPa | Arastouei 2020 [ |
| 2D-printed PLA | 600 µm | NA | 500 ± 10 MPa. | Vanaei 2020 [ |