Subscriber access provided by ALBRIGHT COLLEGE
Biological and Medical Applications of Materials and Interfaces
3D-Printed Polylactic Acid (PLA) Scaffolds Promote Bone-like Matrix Deposition In-vitro Rayan Fairag, Derek Rosenzweig, Jose Luis Ramirez Garcialuna, Michael H. Weber, and Lisbet Haglund ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 11 Apr 2019 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 11, 2019
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
1
3D-Printed Polylactic Acid (PLA) Scaffolds Promote
2
Bone-like Matrix Deposition In-vitro
3 4
Rayan Fairag , Derek H. Rosenzweig , Jose L. Ramirez-Garcialuna , Michael H. Weber and Lisbet Haglund
5
1
6
Montreal, Canada. Orthopaedic Department, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University,
7
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Experimental Surgery, Department of Surgery, McGill University,
8
Montreal, Canada. McGill Scoliosis and Spine Research Group. Shriners Hospital for Children,
9
Montreal, Canada.
1&2
1&3
3
4
1,4&5*
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, 2
3
5
4
10 11
KEYWORDS: 3D printing; low-cost; human osteoblasts; mesenchymal stem cells; bone defect;
12
PLA; scaffolds; bone repair; tissue engineering.
13
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
1
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 2 of 43
14 15
COVER ART: Desktop 3D-printer generating high-resolution PLA structures mimicking native
16
tissues. PLA scaffolds, with different pore sizes (500 µm, 750 µm and 1000 µm), were fabricated.
17
Scaffolds were cell seeded with primary human osteoblasts and compared for cell growth, activity,
18
and bone-like tissue formation, in which 750 µm pore size scaffolds showed superiority over the
19
other sizes. Further experiments confirmed the ability in supporting osteogenic differentiation of
20
human MSC on 750 µm pore scaffolds. These findings suggest that low-cost 750 µm pores-size
21
3D printed scaffolds may be suitable as a bone substitute for repair of bone defects.
22 23 24
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
2
Page 3 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
25
ABSTRACT
26
Large bone defects represent a significant challenge for clinicians and surgeons. Tissue
27
engineering for bone regeneration represents an innovative solution for this dilemma and may
28
yield attractive alternate bone substitutes. 3D printing with inexpensive desktop printers show
29
promise in generating high-resolution structures mimicking native tissues using biocompatible,
30
biodegradable and cost-effective thermoplastics, which are already FDA approved for food use,
31
drug delivery and many medical devices. Micro-porous 3D-printed PLA scaffolds, with different
32
pore sizes (500 µm, 750 µm and 1000 µm), were designed and manufactured using an inexpensive
33
desktop 3D-printer and mechanical properties were assessed. Scaffolds were compared for cell
34
growth, activity, and bone-like tissue formation using primary human osteoblasts. Osteoblasts
35
showed high proliferation, metabolic activity, and osteogenic matrix protein production, in which
36
750 µm pore size scaffolds showed superiority. Further experimentation using human
37
mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) on 750 µm pore scaffolds showed their ability in supporting
38
osteogenic differentiation. These findings suggest that even in the absence of any surface
39
modifications, low-cost 750 µm pores-size 3D printed scaffolds may be suitable as a bone
40
substitute for repair of large bone defects.
41 42
1. Introduction
43
Critical size bone defects resulting from trauma, infections, degenerative diseases, tumor
44
resections and other conditions such as non-union can be challenging for reconstructive
45
orthopaedic surgery . In most cases, bone-grafting is required to fill the bone defects and to
46
stimulate bone-healing of the affected area . Various methods of grafting have been established,
1
2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 4 of 43
47
and autologous bone grafting is considered the “gold standard” due to its biological advantages
48
and cost-effectiveness . Despite its widespread use, autologous grafting exhibits some
49
disadvantages and limitations such as invasiveness, graft site morbidity/pain, limited quantity,
50
surgical wound infection, and increased operative time or multiple operations . Other grafting
51
options include allograft and xenograft, which are less commonly used due to cost, potential
52
disease transmission and immune rejection . To circumvent these issues, clinical bone cements
53
have been developed to fill, stabilize and even promote repair of critical bone defects. Calcium
54
phosphate bone cement is a synthetic graft substitute with osteoconductive and antibiotic delivery
55
capabilities . However, they lack the mechanical properties required to withstand the applied
56
loads. Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) cements provide strong mechanical support, yet they
57
lack bone regenerative properties and are associated with potential drawbacks such as toxicity,
58
thermal necrosis and damage to surrounding healthy tissue . Also, some bone cements have been
59
shown to cause local stress around the target area which can lead to secondary fractures . Hard
60
metals, such titanium, possess superior mechanical properties. Nonetheless, they come with a high
61
cost, issues with bone integration, tissue inflammation and dehiscence .
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
62
Tissue engineering approaches for bone repair and regeneration have been under investigation
63
to circumvent many of the issues described above. This approach combines cells,
64
biomaterial/scaffolds and bioactive factors to create a construct that is able to adjust to the
65
physiological status and regenerate lost tissue . Among the types of scaffolds used for bone tissue
66
engineering, three-dimensional (3D) printing has become an attractive approach. 3D printing (also
67
known as additive manufacturing) is an advanced technology of designing and fabricating 3D
68
structures with high precision, accuracy and detailed biomimetics in a rapid fashion. This
69
technology can overcome many limitations of conventional fabrication options such as solvent-
10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
4
Page 5 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
70
casting, fiber meshes and gas foaming . Current devices for 3D printing can generate scaffolds
71
ranging from millimeter to nanometer scales . Advantages of using 3D printing include the
72
capability to create versatile scaffolds using different FDA-approved synthetic biodegradable
73
polymers which have been termed Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) polymers. These
74
polymers include poly lactic acid (PLA) , polycaprolactone (PCL) and polyurethanes (PUs) which
75
have been used for food packaging, drug delivery, and medical and surgical devices .
11
12
13
76
The ideal material for scaffold development should fulfill specific criteria. The material must
77
be biocompatible and must be capable of being generated with an interconnected network to mimic
78
the natural tissue architecture . The scaffolds should provide a microenvironment promoting cell
79
attachment, growth/ingrowth, and differentiation toward the desired lineage . Scaffolds should
80
also provide the optimal conditions to form functional tissue. It must allow fabrication in different
81
and irregular complex shapes and not induce toxicity or inflammation . Finally, 3D printed
82
scaffolds should possess suitable mechanical properties , appropriate porosity and pore size, and
83
they should be cost effective . Studies have shown that scaffolds with pore size ranging between
84
100 µm to 1500 µm are suitable for tissue engineering applications including bone . Furthermore,
85
it’s been suggested that larger pore size (>500 um) stimulates and conducts vascular tissue growth
86
which is necessary for bone healing
14
15
16
17
15
18-20
.
21-23
87
Among the common thermoplastics for 3D printing, PLA is a biodegradable, highly versatile,
88
aliphatic polyester that can be derived fully from natural renewable resources. It has drawn much
89
attention and has been investigated in biomedical and surgical fields, such as surgical sutures and
90
operating tools, orthopaedic screws and fixation materials, drug carriers and tissue engineering
91
scaffolds
92
were suitable for chondrocyte and nucleus pulposus tissue engineering applications . In this study,
. We have previously demonstrated that low-cost desktop 3D printed PLA plastics
15, 24-27
28
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
5
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 6 of 43
93
we tested the feasibility of using low-cost 3D printed PLA scaffolds of three different pore sizes
94
(500 µm, 750 µm and 1000 µm) on primary human osteoblast adhesion, growth and osteogenic
95
matrix deposition. Furthermore, we evaluated the ability of human mesenchymal stem cells
96
(MSCs) to adhere, proliferate, and differentiate toward osteogenic phenotype and form mineralized
97
clusters on scaffolds with a specific pore size. These low-cost 3D-printed scaffolds present a
98
promising candidate for bone defect repair and graft substitution.
99 100
2. Materials and Methods 2.1.
Fabrication of the materials
101
PLA Raptor Series filament (FDA approved as GRAS and autoclavable) was purchased from
102
MakerGeeks (Springfield, MO USA) with (1.75 mm) thickness. 3D, uniform, open-pore cuboidal
103
scaffolds with square pore sizes of 500 µm (small), 750 µm (medium) and 1000 µm (large) were
104
designed using CAD Software SolidWorks® (Dassault Systems SolidWorks Corporation,
105
Waltham, MA) and converted to stereolithography (.stl) file format (Figure 1A). The overall
106
dimensions of the scaffolds were 10 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm. The .stl files were formatted to meet
107
printing parameters on the Flashforge Creator Pro 3D Desktop Printer (Flashforge, Los Angeles,
108
USA). PLA filament extrudes at an optimal temperature of 210 °C from a 0.3 mm nozzle. Printing
109
time was consistent with 50 minutes to print small pore size, 45 minutes for printing medium pore
110
size and 39 minutes for large pore size scaffolds. Constructs were then rinsed in 70% ethanol
111
overnight, packaged and autoclaved using standard dry cycle (121 C, 20 psi for 30 minutes).
112
0
2.2.
Scaffold characterization (μCT)
113
Micro-CT analysis of empty PLA scaffolds was performed using a Skyscan 1172 instrument
114
(Bruker, Kontich, Belgium) at a channel resolution of 7 microns using NRecon v.1.6.10.4 to
115
compose 3D models and CTAn v.1.16.4.1 software for quantitative analysis (Bruker) as described
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
6
Page 7 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
116
previously . Quantitative data for PLA scaffolds was recorded in a region of interest (ROI) 10 mm
117
wide x 10 mm long x 4 mm in depth spanning the entirety of the scaffold. Reported parameters
118
are scaffold volume / ROI volume (SV/RV %), scaffold surface (SS mm ), number of scaffold
119
filaments per mm (SF.N 1/mm), average thickness of the scaffold filament (SF.Th µm), average
120
space between filaments or pore size (SF.Sp µm), total porosity (Po.Tot %).
121
29
2
2.3.
Mechanical testing
122
All scaffold dimensions were measured after printing to ensure dimensional consistency. Failing
123
point protocol applied un-confined vertical axial compression to scaffold surfaces at a rate of 0.1
124
mm/s until heights were reduced by 50% (1 mm) using a Mini Bionix 858 (MTS machine). The
125
material stiffness was obtained by calculating the Young’s modulus between 5% - 10%
126
compressive strain for all scaffolds as previously reported . 30
127
2.4.
Cell Isolation and culture (Osteoblasts and MSCs)
128
2.4.1. Osteoblasts:
129
Human lumbar spine tissues were obtained from 3 donors (aged 13, 17 and 52) with institutional
130
ethical approval and with donor family consent in collaboration with the local organ donation
131
program (Transplant Quebec). Cortical bone was cut manually into small 1-2 mm pieces and
132
washed vigorously with phosphate buffer saline (PBS) supplemented with antibiotics. All visible
133
muscle and fascia were removed by a sterile scalpel. To remove any remaining soft tissue, the
134
pieces were incubated overnight in growth medium (high-glucose DMEM; 0.1 mM nonessential
135
amino acids; 10 mM HEPES; 1 mM sodium pyruvate; 10% fetal bovine serum; and 1%
136
gentamycin solution supplemented with 1.5 mg/mL collagenase type II (Invitrogen/Gibco,
137
Burlington, ON, Canada). The remaining bone was washed 3 times with sterile PBS and placed in
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
7
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 8 of 43
138
a T75 flask covered with growth media (7 days) and osteoblastic cells were obtained by outgrowth
139
from the bone pieces, trypsinized and subcultured for 1 passage.
140
2.4.2. Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem cells:
141
Human bone marrow-derived MSC from a 20-year-old female, were obtained from RoosterBio
142
Inc., Frederick, MD 21703, USA. Cells were tested and certified by the manufacturer. Cells were
143
expanded for 1 passage following manufacturer’s protocol using (hMSC media booster GTX-
144
SU003 and hMSC high-performance basal media SU005). Each independent experiment with
145
MSCs was performed at passage 2 in this study.
146
2.5.
Scaffold seeding and Cell attachment
147
Osteoblasts and MSC were cultured in monolayer (High glucose-Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle
148
Medium (DMEM) containing 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum (Gibco, Burlington, ON, Canada), 1%
149
glutaMAX supplement and 0.5% gentamycin) at 37 °C in a humidified cell culture incubator with
150
5% CO2. Confluent cells (passage 2) were washed with sterile PBS, detached using 0.25% trypsin
151
(Gibco, Burlington, ON, Canada). Fresh culture media was added, and cells were centrifuged at
152
500 × g for five minutes. Detached cells were suspended in fresh culture media and seeded on the
153
scaffolds, using a syringe technique developed “in-house”. Briefly, scaffolds were placed inside
154
5mL syringes fitted with a four-way stopcock with rotating collar (Navilyst medical Inc.,
155
Marlborough, MA USA) with a cell density of 5x10 cells/scaffold. Syringes were kept inside the
156
culture incubator and rotated every 30 minutes over 2 hours to give equal opportunity for cell
157
adhesion. After that, constructs were transferred to 24 well-plate (with remaining cell suspension)
158
overnight. Next morning, scaffolds were transferred to a new dish, and immersed with osteogenic
159
media (DMEM low glucose, 10 % FBS, 1 % gentamycin, 50 μg/ml ascorbic acid, 10 nM
5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
8
Page 9 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
160
dexamethasone, 5 mM betaglycerol-2-phosphate) or standard differentiation media (DMEM high
161
glucose, 10 % FBS, 1 % gentamycin) for 7, 14 or 21 days.
162 163
2.6.
Cell number and DNA Quantification
164
After 21 days of culture, scaffolds were submerged in a fixed volume (1 mL) of 4M Guanidine
165
hydrochloride (GuHCl) buffer supplemented with complete protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche
166
Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA). The DNA content of 3D constructs was measured using
167
DNA HOECHST 33258 Assay. Briefly, all (GuHCl) extracts were diluted 10-fold before analysis.
168
Calf-thymus DNA supplemented with an equivalent amount of 0.4 M GuHCl was used to generate
169
standard curves
170
prepared according to manufacturer instructions (ThermoFisher). Samples were analyzed in 96-
171
well microplates, in triplicate, using a Tecan M200 Pro plate reader (Tecan, Mannedorf,
172
Switzerland), at 360 nm excitation and 460 nm emission, and 420 nm cut-off. Standard curves
173
were generated on the worksheet. We quantified the DNA content of 5 x 10 cells and thereby
174
extrapolated DNA count to 7 pg DNA/cell.
175
. The Hoechst 33258 (Molecular Probes, ThermoFisher, Burlington, ON) was
30-31
5
2.7.
Protein analysis and matrix production (Western blot)
176
200 µl of the protein extracts were ethanol precipitated and re-suspended in NuPage LDS Loading
177
Buffer (Life Technologies) as described previously . Total protein in the extracts was determined
178
by Pierce™ Coomassie (Bradford) Protein Assay Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., Burlington,
179
ON, Canada). Proteins were separated on 10% LDS polyacrylamide gels and electro-transferred
180
to Amersham proton 0.2 nitrocellulose membrane (Hybond-P, GE Healthcare, Mississauga,
181
Canada). Membranes were blocked with 3% skim milk and probed with antibodies against human
182
Osteopontin (OPN) (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) at 1:1000 dilution. Appropriate
32
TM
TM
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
9
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 10 of 43
183
secondary antibody (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) at 1:1000 dilution was used. Alpha-
184
tubulin (Abcam, 1:5000) was used as a loading control. All membranes were incubated with the
185
appropriate secondary antibodies and developed using Western Lightning Plus-ECL (PerkinElmer
186
Life Sciences) and LAS 4000 Image Quant system (General Electric). Densitometric calculations
187
was carried out using ImageLab software (Biorad). Samples were normalized to Alpha-tubulin and
188
to the background of the blot.
189
2.8.
Calcified matrix deposition (Alizarin Red staining)
190
After 21 days culture period, PLA scaffolds of all sizes (Small, Medium and Large) seeded with
191
osteoblasts, MSCs or acellular constructs ( standard culture (STD) and osteogenic (OST) ) were
192
fixed with 4% buffered paraformaldehyde solution at room temperature for 10 min. Scaffolds were
193
then washed three times with PBS to remove formalin, and 1% Alizarin Red solution (Sigma-
194
Aldrich Inc., Darmstadt, Germany) was added and left for 10 minutes at room temperature. All
195
samples were washed 2-4 times with distilled water until dye is removed from the acellular
196
negative controls. Images were captured with a Canon EOS 350d digital camera . Alizarin red
197
stain was dissolved and subsequently quantified using the osteogenesis assay kit (ECM815
198
Millipore Sigma Inc., Canada) according to the user manual.
199
33
2.9.
Osteogenesis related gene expression
200
500 µg RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) according to the
201
manufacturer instructions, following 21 days of culture. RNA was reverse-transcribed using
202
qScript reagent (Quantabio, Beverly, MA USA). Quantitative real-time RT-PCR analysis was
203
performed with StepOnePlus, Real Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA,
204
USA) using PerfeCTa SYBR Green detection reagent (Quantabio, Beverly, MA USA). Relative
205
expression of Runt-related transcription factors (RUNX2), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), bone
TM
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
10
Page 11 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
206
sialoprotein (BSP), osteonectin (ON) and collagen type I (COL-1) was quantified and normalized
207
to the housekeeping gene glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). Relative
208
expression and fold change for each target gene was evaluated using 2
209
(Table 1) were previously validated and described
210
Table 1. Sequence of the forward and reverse primers used for the q-PCR.
-ΔΔCt
method . All primer sets 34
.
35-37
Target gene
Forward primer (5'-3')
Reserved primer (5'-3')
GAPDH
TCCCTGAGCTGAACGGGAAG
GGAGGAGTGGGTGTCGCTGT
BSP
AAGCTCCAGCCTGGGATGA
TATTGCACCTTCCTGAGTTGAACT
ON
TCCGTACGGCAGCCACTAC
GCATGGCTCTCAAGCACTTG
RUNX-2
TCAGCCCAGAACTGAGAAACTC
TTATCACAGATGGTCCCTAATGGT
ALP
AGAACCCCAAAGGCTTCTTC
CTTGGCTTTTCCTTCATGGT
Col1a1
AGGGCTCCAACGAGATCGAGATCCG
TACAGGAAGCAGACAGGGCCAACG
211 212
2.10.
Scanning electron microscopy observation
213
Constructs were assessed by scanning electron microscopy (FEI Inspect F50 FE-SEM) after 21
214
days of culture. Briefly, cell seeded and acellular scaffolds were fixed for 30 minutes with 4%
215
paraformaldehyde, rinsed with PBS and subsequently underwent critical point drying process as
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
11
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 12 of 43
216
previously described , followed by Platinum sputter coating. Morphological characteristics of the
217
constructs and attached cells were observed using SEM operating at 5 kV high resolution.
218
38
2.11.
Statistical analysis
219
All values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and represent at least three independent
220
experiments (n = 3). For all comparisons of effects, simple t-test or one-way ANOVA tests were
221
performed. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using Tukey post-hoc tests where appropriate. P-
222
values < 0.05 - < 0.0001 were considered significant. GraphPad Prism version 6.00 was used for
223
all statistical analyses (GraphPad Inc., La Jolla, CA).
224
3. Results
225
3.1.
Characterization of scaffolds (Morphology)
226
The scaffold printing process generated a well-defined architecture with uniform pore distribution
227
(Figure 1A). The orthogonal structure was recorded with the size of 10x10x4 mm and surface
228
morphology of the constructs was demonstrated grossly and with µCT. The dry weight of each
229
scaffold was highly consistent with the amount of material filling and composing the scaffold
230
(small: 0.36 gm ± 0.002, Medium: 0.23 gm ± 0.002, Large: 0.24 gm ± 0.004) p < 0.0001 (Figure
231
1B). All three scaffold types had measured pore sizes harmonious with the intended designs,
232
suggesting accuracy of the low-cost desktop printer. The pore sizes were highly consistent for each
233
scaffold type and suitable for cells to invade from the top as well as from side walls. The small
234
pore scaffolds had average pore size of 585.61 µm ± 26.40, the medium had average pore size of
235
769.94 µm ± 12.98, large size scaffolds had average pore size of 1028.85 µm ± 57.54, p < 0.0001.
236
Scaffolds were designed with porosity volumes allowing better nutrient and cell interaction (Small:
237
45.82 % ± 10.43, medium: 66.10 % ± 5.45, large: 83.9 % ± 4.95), p < 0.005 (Figure 1C). The
238
scaffold fabrication and replication process manifests high accuracy and precision as evidenced by
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
12
Page 13 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
239
µCT analysis which proves the value of low-cost printing in tissue engineering applications.
240
SV/RV for small scaffolds had an average of 54.17 % ± 10.43, the medium had an average of
241
33.89 % ± 5.45, and the large scaffolds had an average of 29.99 % ± 2.87) p < 0.05. Average
242
scaffold surface area for the small scaffold was 630.87 mm ± 18.93, the medium size average
243
surface area was 489.28 mm ± 21.51, and the large size average surface area was 371.63 mm ±
244
8.64, p < 0.0001. The average filament/mm for small scaffolds was 0.94 ± 0.04, for the medium
245
0.62 ± 0.04 and for the large scaffold 0.64 ± 0.01. p < 0.0001. Thickness of filament was consistent
246
in all sizes with no statistical difference observed (Small: 0.46 mm ± 0.03, medium: 0.46 mm ±
247
0.01, large: 0.43 mm ± 0.03) (Table 2).
2
2
2
248 249
Figure 1. Morphological characterization of 3D printed scaffolds. A) Representative images of
250
the 3D models with dimensions and printing process. B) Quantification of scaffold weight, (n =
251
6), error bars represent ± SD (** = P value < 0.005), (# = P value < 0.0001), with a representative
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
13
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 14 of 43
252
image of printed scaffolds (Canon EOS 350d Camera). C) Pore size was calculated by Scanning
253
Electron Microscopy, and porosity was determined by µ-CT. For each set, (n = 3), error bars
254
represent ± SD and (* = P value < 0.05), (** = P value < 0.005), (# = P value < 0.0001).
255 256 257
Table 2. µCT Characterization of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds Variable
Small pore size
Medium pore size
Large pore size
SV/RV (%)
54.2 ± 10.4
33.9 ± 5.4
29.9 ± 2.8
SS (mm )
630.9 ± 18.9
489.2 ± 21.5
371.6 ± 8.6
SF.N (1/mm)
0.94 ± 0.04
0.64 ± 0.04
0.62 ± 0.01
SF.Th (µm)
460.5 ± 34.9
467.4 ± 17.2
439.3 ± 35.7
SF.Sp (µm)
577.1 ± 66.0
798.9 ± 93.9
1,005 ± 42.4
Po.Tot (%)
45.8 ± 7.4
66.1 ± 5.4
83.9 ± 4.9
2
258 259 260 261
3.2.
Mechanical properties:
262
The compressive mechanical characteristics of the PLA scaffolds are presented in (Figure 2).
263
Significant differences in stiffness was observed between the three sizes (p < 0.05, p < 0.0001) in
264
which the Young’s Modulus for the small pore size was (206.7 MPa ± 0.17 SD), medium size
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
14
Page 15 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
265
scaffold (137.5 MPa ± 6.98 SD) and (116.4 MPa ± 5.97 SD) for large size PLA scaffold (Figure
266
2A). The failure point of each scaffold was determined from the stress/strain curves in which the
267
small size failure point was around (21.63 MPa), around (11.86 MPa) for the medium size and
268
around (8.53 MPa) for the large pore scaffold (Figure 2B). Our results demonstrated an overall
269
higher compressive modulus with smaller pores due to the addition of bulk material (smallest pore
270
size has the highest amount of material and is the stiffest). These scaffolds show compressive
271
properties comparable to trabecular bone when strained between 5% and 10% and the determined
272
Young’s Modulus values were comparable to the wide range of measurements in the literature . 39
273 274
Figure 2. Mechanical properties of 3D printed scaffolds. A) Young’s modulus representing 5-10%
275
compressive stress/strain curves of printed PLA scaffolds. For each set, (n = 3), error bars represent
276
± SD and (* = P value < 0.05), (# = P value < 0.0001). B) Stress/Strain curves of (500 µm, 750
277
µm and 1000µm) showing the amount of deformation, Elastic (proportionality) limit and plastic
278
region. For each set, (n = 3).
279
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
15
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
280
3.3.
281
3.3.1. Osteoblasts
282
3.3.1.1.
Page 16 of 43
Cell behavior and activity within the 3D environment
3D cell organization and growth in scaffolds
283
Cell growth and spatial distribution was visualized during the culture period using an inverted light
284
microscope (Axiovert 40, Göttingen, Germany). Osteoblasts were surrounding and attaching to
285
the surface of the scaffold and growing into the open pores in all three scaffold sizes. An additional
286
observation found during the culture period was that the cell network always starts at the edges of
287
the pores. With longer culture time, there was an extension of cell growing into the center of the
288
pore, especially the corner pores of the scaffolds (Figure 3). Cells were also growing and covering
289
the surface and between the additive layers of the scaffolds indicating cell adaptation to the 3D
290
environment (Figure 4A).
291
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
16
Page 17 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
292
Figure 3. Scanning electron microscopy of acellular and cell-seeded scaffolds. Representative
293
SEM images of (acellular, Osteoblasts, MSC-OST seeded scaffolds) at 80x, 450x, 1500x and
294
22000x magnifications and scale bars represents 1 mm, 200 µm, 50 µm and 5 µm with rectangular
295
marker indicating the region of scan (n = 3).
296 297
3.3.1.2.
Osteoblast doubling and expansion
298
Assessment of cell population expansion over the culture period was evaluated by measuring total
299
DNA content. All scaffolds showed an increase in osteoblast number with the highest number of
300
osteoblasts recorded from medium scaffolds. Statistically significant differences were
301
demonstrated supporting the superiority of the medium size p < 0.0001. Scaffolds with small pore
302
size had approximately (683,437 ± 27,455) cells, scaffolds with medium pore size had around
303
(765,945 ± 27,455) and scaffolds with large size had (612,519 ± 24,438) cells (Figure 4B).
304
3.3.1.3.
Calcification and mineralization
305
Calcium deposition and mineralization was qualitatively assessed by alizarin red staining with
306
empty scaffold cultured the same period served as control. Osteoblast scaffolds showed intense
307
alizarin red staining in all sizes with the medium size scaffold displaying the strongest color
308
intensity. Quantification of alizarin red concentrations (mM) showed significantly more calcified
309
matrix (P < 0.05) from the medium size scaffold compared to the other sizes. The small scaffold
310
showed (1.44 ± 0.034 mM concentration), the medium scaffolds showed (2.48 ± 0.167 mM
311
concentration), and the large showed (1.030 ± 0.102 mM concentration) (Figure 4C).
312
3.3.1.4.
Assessment of osteogenic matrix
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
17
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 18 of 43
313
The expression of OPN, a major extracellular bone matrix protein, was evaluated by western blot
314
analysis of the cell-scaffold extracts seeded with primary osteoblasts. Scaffolds showed
315
significantly high expression of OPN with the medium pore size scaffold showing the highest
316
amount (Small: 4.41 ± 0.94, Medium: 6.76 ± 0.64, Large: 2.04 ± 0.24) p < 0.0005 (Figure 4D).
317 318
Figure 4. Primary human osteoblast culture on 3D printed scaffolds. A) Representative images of
319
Bright field microscopy images (phase contrast) of osteoblast-seeded scaffolds during culture
320
period at 10× magnification (n = 6). Black arrows indicate cell growth and neo-tissue deposition.
321
Scale bar represents 500 µm. B) DNA quantification of osteoblast/scaffold using HOECHST
322
33258 Assay. Horizontal line in the middle of the graph represents 5 x 10 cells. (n = 3) Error bars 5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
18
Page 19 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
323
represent ± SD and (** = P value < 0.005), (*** = P value < 0.0005), (# = P value < 0.0001). C)
324
Representative image of fixed acellular and osteoblast-seeded PLA scaffolds of (500 µm, 750 µm
325
and 1000 µm) pore size stained with Alizarin Red-S stain after 21 days culture (n = 3). Marker
326
represent 10x10 mm squares dimensions and stain quantification using Alizarin Red osteogenesis
327
kit (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD and (** = P value < 0.005), (*** = P value < 0.0005). D)
328
Representative Western blot for Osteopontin (OPN) accumulation and densitometry quantification
329
(n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD, (* = P value < 0.05), (*** = P value < 0.0005).
330 331
3.3.2. Bone marrow stem cells:
332
3.3.2.1.
3D cell organization and growth in scaffolds
333
During culture period, MSCs started to form colonies within the pores creating nanofibril lines.
334
Cells had a strong tendency to form multilayers, coating the scaffold with matrix-like tissue that
335
proliferated deep into the pore spaces with time (Figure 5A). This was confirmed by scanning
336
electron microscopy (SEM) which showed abundant network formation covering the scaffolds
337
with densely packed coating at the surface. This matrix filled the pores over time. The high
338
proliferation rates and cellular activity indicates biocompatibility of our 3D printed PLA scaffolds
339
(Figure 3).
340
3.3.2.2.
Population and expansion of MSCs
341
MSCs showed higher activity than osteoblasts during experiments, indicated by requirement of
342
more frequent media change. MSCs showed comparable growth on the medium scaffold and no
343
statistical difference in number between MSCs cultured in standard and osteogenic media was
344
observed. Approximately (728,424 ± 40,140) MSC-STD and (790,108 ± 13,287) MSC-OST
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
19
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 20 of 43
345
(Figure 5B). These results were also comparable to osteoblast seeded on medium size scaffold (no
346
statistical difference observed).
347
3.3.2.3.
Calcified matrix deposition on scaffolds
348
Scaffolds were seeded with undifferentiated MSCs and were cultured in the presence or absence osteogenic
349
differentiation media. Calcium deposition and mineralization was qualitatively assessed by alizarin red
350
staining with cultures in standard and osteogenic media, and empty scaffolds served as a negative control.
351
Scaffolds cultured in both standard and osteogenic media showed evenly distributed cells after 21 days of
352
culture. Alizarin red staining was assessed and showed significantly values (p < 0.0001) in osteogenic
353
compared to standard cultures supporting calcified matrix deposition, (MSC-STD: 0.054 ± 0.002 mM
354
concentration), (MSC-OST:3.667 ± 0.376 mM concentration) (Figure 5C). In fact, comparing quantified
355
calcified matrix of MSC-OST to osteoblast on medium scaffold showed significantly more calcified matrix
356
in the MSC cultures (p < 0.05).
357
3.3.2.4.
Assessment of MSC osteogenesis
358
Differentiation of human bone marrow MSCs on medium pore size PLA scaffold toward
359
osteogenic phenotype was assessed by the expression of osteogenic gene markers RUNX2, ALP,
360
BSP, ON and COL-1 at 7, 14 and 21 days of culture. Cells displayed significantly higher
361
expression of BSP (89.181 ± 2.385-fold difference, p < 0.0001) ALP (18.070 ± 0.951-fold
362
difference, p < 0.05) RUNX-2 (3.184 ± 0.159-fold difference, p < 0.05) where COL-1 and ON
363
showed non-statistically significant elevation compared to the standard group after 21 days.
364
(Figure 5D). Furthermore, MSCs supplemented with osteogenic differentiation media showed
365
abundant OPN protein expression compared to cultures in standard media (Figure 5E).
366
Densitometry quantification showed a significant difference and supported these findings (MSC-
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
20
Page 21 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
367
STD: 2.06 ± 0.34, MSC-OST: 5.11 ± 1.45, p < 0.001). Together, these data support the
368
differentiation of MSCs seeded on these PLA 3D-printed scaffolds towards osteogenic phenotype.
369 370
Figure 5. Human MSCs culture on medium sized scaffolds. A) Representative images of Bright
371
field microscopy (phase contrast) of MSC-seeded scaffolds (osteogenic vs standard culture) during
372
culture period at 10× magnification (n = 6). Black arrows indicate cell growth and neo-tissue
373
deposition. Scale bar represents 500 µm. B) DNA quantification of MSC/scaffold (osteogenic vs
374
standard culture) using HOECHST 33258. Horizontal line in the middle of the graph represents
375
500 000 cells. (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD. C) Fixed acellular, and MSC-seeded PLA
376
scaffolds of (osteogenic vs standard culture) stained with Alizarin Red-S stain after 21 days
377
culture. Representative images (n = 3) of Alizarin Red-S staining with marker representing 10x10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
21
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 22 of 43
378
mm squares Error bars represent ± SD, (# = P value < 0.0001). D) qPCR analysis of osteogenic
379
markers after 21 days culture. Expression levels were normalized to GAPDH with fold change
380
compared to standard culture media (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD, (* = P value < 0.05) (# = P
381
value < 0.0001). E) Representative Western blot for Osteopontin (OPN) accumulation and
382
densitometry quantification (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD, (** = P value < 0.005).
383 384
4. Discussion
385
PLA is a FDA-approved Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) polymer used for many
386
biomedical applications with excellent biocompatibility, biodegradability, and mechanical
387
properties . Our PLA constructs demonstrated high accuracy and reproducibility of fabrication.
388
All Scaffolds were designed with same outer dimensions. The amount of material needed to print
389
the medium and large scaffolds is similar to preserve dimensional precision, but a larger amount
390
of material is needed for the small pore size scaffold. The number, size and distribution of pores
391
and strut size varies between the designs. Moreover, the results from this study clearly demonstrate
392
that a narrow difference in pore size (500 – 750 – 1000 µm) significantly impacts the mechanical
393
properties, cell growth, differentiation and calcified matrix production. Our data help to narrow
394
the optimal wide range of appropriate pore size for bone regeneration described in the literature
395
(between 100-1500 µm). The presented scaffolds were designed with a porosity volume (40-80%)
396
that keeps optimal balance between mechanical strength and degradation rate . Our findings were
397
similar to what has been recently described in other studies using additive manufacturing strategies
398
in regard to appropriate pore size and porosity for optimal osteoconduction
399
concept, primary human osteoblasts were used to show biocompatibility of these scaffolds
400
following the 3D-printing process and to determine the appropriate pore size for cells to grow,
26
40
. As a proof of
41-43
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
22
Page 23 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
401
differentiate or maintain their phenotype. Here, the 750 µm PLA scaffold showed optimal cell
402
growth and activity, as demonstrated by the highest calcified neo-matrix deposition and high
403
expression of OPN compared to the other two sizes. Bone marrow MSCs were then used to
404
determine the feasibility of osteogenic differentiation within the 750 µm pore-size scaffold. We
405
showed that 3D-Printed PLA scaffolds with 750 µm pore size supported proliferation and
406
osteogenic differentiation of MSCs, as indicated by significant production calcified bone-like
407
matrix, OPN and osteogenic gene expression. Cell-seeding of the scaffolds was sufficient without
408
any type of coating or cell carrier. We took into consideration that some cells fail to attach, and
409
the cell numbers in the scaffolds after 3 weeks is relative to the starting number of adherent cells.
410
Moreover, our study revealed that the 3D-printed PLA scaffolds presented here have
411
mechanical properties that fall within the range reported for native bone
412
mechanical properties between models and materials depend on geometric microstructure, and
413
factors such as printing technique, print settings (material flow rate, rate of printing) and the
414
percentage polymers in raw materials. Also, the type of testing conducted can play a major role in
415
the mechanical characterization of the scaffold. Our data indicate that if implanted into a bone
416
defect, these scaffolds may provide an appropriate environment to recruit host stem cells and
417
promote osteogenic differentiation and bone repair. In vivo studies will be necessary to determine
418
potential adverse effects, bone repair and scaffold resorption rates.
419
. Differences in
44-46
It comes without surprise that 3D-printing has been strongly adopted by orthopaedic surgery
420
clinical practice, medical education, patient education
421
While 3D printing has been used for some time to generate patient models of defects for pre-
422
surgical planning , there is a growing shift in using this technology in actual bone or tissue repair.
423
One major focus in orthopaedic and reconstructive surgery is to use 3D-printed constructs for
47-49
and orthopaedic-related basic science
.
50-52
53
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
23
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 24 of 43
424
filling bone defects, substituting current standard therapies as an innovative approach for bone
425
repair
426
of 3D-printed polymers as graft substitute. Hung and colleagues used a custom 3D printer to create
427
a hybrid scaffold composed of PCL combined with decellularized bone particles from calves in-
428
vitro using human adipose stem cells and implanted these cell-seeded scaffolds in a calvarial defect
429
animal model. The authors showed their model’s effectiveness toward stimulating bone
430
regeneration and also highlighted that using a hybrid-type scaffold could affect mechanical
431
properties of the scaffold
432
(PLA/hydroxyapatite) composite printed with advanced mini-deposition system with a pore size
433
of 500 µm and 60% porosity, and seeded them with rat stem cells . Another group has recently
434
shown the clinical potential of using silk/recombinant human BMP-2 composite scaffolds using
435
techniques in which 3D printing could be a feasible option to use . Zigang and his group evaluated
436
in vitro behavior of osteoblast cell-lines within 3D powder printed Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)
437
PLGA scaffolds, highlighting their feasibility for bone regeneration applications. The authors
438
described the limitations of using established cell lines versus primary extracted cells . Not many
439
studies have applied a low-cost commercial desktop 3D printer which can be a part of many
440
laboratories, handled by everyone with countless research applications and benefits. These devices
441
typically require minimal physical space and take minutes to hours to print the desired model
442
depending on multiple factors under the control of the consumer.
. Several studies have shown applicability and clinical relevance of using different types
54-56
. Zhang and colleagues showed similar results using a
46
57
58
40
443
Due to the expiration of key patents in the past decade, high quality and highly precise desktop
444
3D printers can be purchased for under $1000 USD . A major advantage of low-cost 3D-printing
445
is that most of the thermoplastic materials such as (PLA, PLGA, PCL), ceramics (calcium
446
polyphosphate) and metal (titanium) have met FDA medical devices, biologics and drug
12
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
24
Page 25 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
447
regulations as safe polymers (GRAS), bringing the clinical translation of these tools within reach.
448
To increase the level of promise of this low-cost technology, a group of clinicians fabricated
449
surgical retractors using PLA fabrics which have been approved by the FDA for surgical use. The
450
devices exhibited safety, cost effectiveness and sufficient mechanical strength generated using a
451
single low-cost 3D printer (The Replicator 2, ~ $2,000 USD) . This supports the idea that these
452
technologies can be employed to produce surgical instruments at remote or under-developed sites
453
at a very low cost. Furthermore, Ayoub and colleagues fabricated custom drill guides using FDA
454
approved materials for dental implant surgery using an inexpensive printer, demonstrating an
455
advantage in lowering postoperative morbidity rates and operation times .
59
60
456
Another area of rapid growth in 3D printing is in the emerging field bioprinting. A vast range
457
of natural raw materials are available such as alginate, chitosan, gelatin, collagen and hyaluronic
458
acids can be used as “bioinks” in low-cost bioprinters . Contributing to its relatively affordable
459
costs in which some units are available between $ 5000 - $10000 USD, native/natural materials
460
and hardware can easily be modified to allow for tremendous progress in 3D-printing process.
461
Bioprinters affirmed their importance and role in developing new tissue engineering approaches ,
462
advance cancer research models , pharmacological screening, and therapeutic agent delivery .
463
Additionally, vascularization of 3D-printed constructs is now possible using bioprinting
464
technology .
61
62
63
64
65
465
Most studies are suggesting that 3D-printed bone graft substitutes are ready for and require
466
additional studies beyond animal models. A limited number of clinical studies composed mainly
467
of case reports and small-size population studies can be found using 3D-printed models as implants
468
66-67
469
outcomes .
. Indeed, 3D-printed titanium hip implants have been used for over 10 years, with positive patient 68
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
25
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 26 of 43
470
To consider these low-cost 3D printed scaffolds suitable for use in patients, many factors must
471
be taken into account. Perhaps most surgeons would consider biomechanics as a major limiting
472
factor in the clinical use of this technology. It is important to note that our PLA in vitro model
473
lacks surface modifications which may enhance cell adhesion, cell differentiation or bone matrix
474
deposition. Since we do not perform surface modifications, the only factors affecting cell
475
proliferation and matrix production were likely due to the nature of flat 3D-printed PLA, pore size
476
differences, structural geometry, surface roughness and chemistry.
477
While we may argue that these scaffolds work well as a bone substitute in vitro, certain
478
modifications can enhance the properties of PLA. Chemical modification with minerals such as
479
hydroxyapatite or tri-calcium phosphate can be mixed and added to PLA filaments to induce more
480
osteoinductivity, attract cells and promote bone repair . Soft hydrogels such as chitosan can be
481
incorporated with growth factors within the open space of scaffolds to provide a better proliferative
482
environment and conduct more osteogenesis . Physical and microstructural modifications can also
483
be used to adjust the scaffold mechanical/degradation rates.
69
70
484
5. Conclusion
485
The current study focused on emphasizing the value of inexpensive desktop 3D printers and
486
off-the-shelf materials in keeping pace with the advancement of tissue engineering. This study
487
demonstrates three different pore-sized 3D printed PLA scaffolds have been successfully
488
generated using an inexpensive desktop 3D printer. Out of three pore-sizes, the medium size (750
489
µm) scaffold exhibited highest cytocompatibility and bioactivity of primary human osteoblasts.
490
For clinical relevance, human MSCs seeded into the medium size scaffolds showed strong
491
osteogenic differentiation capacity. Therefore, we believe this simple, low-cost approach can be
492
extended to future in vivo studies with potential clinical applications. 3D-printed PLA could
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
26
Page 27 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
493
therefore be used as custom, on-site bolt or push fit into a bone defect allowing bone marrow stem
494
cells to infiltrate, adhere, proliferate and form new bone.
495 496 497
AUTHOR INFORMATION
498
Corresponding Author
499
Lisbet Haglund
500
McGill University, Department of Surgery, Montreal General Hospital, Room C10.148.2, 1650
501
Cedar Ave, Montreal, QC H3G 1A4, Telephone: (514) 934 1934 ext. 35380. OR Shriners Hospital
502
for Children,1003, boulevard Décarie, Montréal, Québec H4A 0A9, Telephone: (514) 282-7166,
503
lisbet.haglund@mcgill.ca
504
Author Contributions
505
Conceptualization by R.F, D.H.R, M.H.W and L.H. Experimental designing by D.H.R and L.H.
506
Experimentation and data analysis carried out by R.F and D.H.R. Micro-CT analysis was done by
507
JLRGL Resources and Material were provided by L.H. Results interpretation by R.F, D.H.R and
508
L.H. Original draft was written by RF. Reviewing and editing by D.H.R and L.H. Project
509
Supervision by D.H.R, M.H.W and LH. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript
510
for submission.
511
Funding Sources
512
This research was supported by the Reseau de Recherche en Sante Buccodentaire et Osseuse
513
(RSBO) bone and oral health network (DHR, MHW and LH). Funding was also kindly provided
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
27
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 28 of 43
514
by a Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau Research Fellowship (RF). (JLRGL) was funded by the
515
Mexican National Council for Science and Technology.
516
Discloser Statement
517
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
518
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
519
Preparation of 3D printed samples for SEM and image acquisition was performed at the Materials
520
Engineering department at McGill University, Montreal QC, Canada.
521 522
ABBREVIATIONS
523
MSC, Mesenchymal stem cells; PLA, Poly lactic acid; PMMA, Poly(methyl methacrylate); PCL,
524
Polycaprolactone; PUs, polyurethanes; SV/RV, Scaffold volume / ROI volume; SS, scaffold
525
surface; SF.N, Number of scaffold filaments per mm; SF.Th, average thickness of the scaffold
526
filament; SF.Sp, Average space between filaments or pore size; Po.Tot, total porosity; PBS,
527
phosphate buffer saline; DMEM, High glucose-Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium; FBS, Fetal
528
bovine serum; GuHCl, Guanidine hydrochloride; OPN, Osteopontin; STD, standard culture; OST,
529
osteogenic culture; RUNX2, Runt-related transcription factors; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; BSP,
530
bone sialoprotein; ON, osteonectin; COL-1, collagen type I; GAPDH, glyceraldehydes 3-
531
phosphate dehydrogenase; GRAS, FDA-approved Generally Recognized as Safe.
532 533
REFERENCES
534 535 536
(1) Gage, M. J.; Liporace, F. A.; Egol, K. A.; McLaurin, T. M. Management of Bone Defects in Orthopedic Trauma. Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) 2018, 76 (1), 4-8. (2) Kalfas, I. H. Principles of bone healing. Neurosurgical focus 2001, 10 (4), 1-4.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
28
Page 29 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
(3) De Boer, H. H. The history of bone grafts. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1988, 226, 292-298. (4) Sen, M.; Miclau, T. Autologous iliac crest bone graft: should it still be the gold standard for treating nonunions? Injury 2007, 38 (1), S75-S80. (5) Dimitriou, R.; Jones, E.; McGonagle, D.; Giannoudis, P. V. Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions. BMC medicine 2011, 9 (1), 66. (6) Dunne, N.; Clements, J.; Wang, J. Acrylic cements for bone fixation in joint replacement. In Joint Replacement Technology; Elsevier: 2014; pp 212-256. (7) Kim, D. H. Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Spinal Techniques E-Book, Elsevier Health Sciences: 2010. (8) Khor, E. From Academia to Entrepreneur: Lessons from the Real World, Elsevier: 2013. (9) Park, H. K.; Dujovny, M.; Agner, C.; Diaz, F. G. Biomechanical properties of calvarium prosthesis. Neurological research 2001, 23 (2-3), 267-276. (10) Vacanti, J. P.; Langer, R. Tissue engineering: the design and fabrication of living replacement devices for surgical reconstruction and transplantation. The lancet 1999, 354, S32-S34. (11) Peltola, S. M.; Melchels, F. P.; Grijpma, D. W.; Kellomäki, M. A review of rapid prototyping techniques for tissue engineering purposes. Annals of medicine 2008, 40 (4), 268-280. (12) Ventrici de Souza, J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, S.; Dorig, P.; Kuhl, T. L.; Frommer, J.; Liu, G. Y. ThreeDimensional Nanoprinting via Direct Delivery. The journal of physical chemistry. B 2018, 122 (2), 956-962, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b06978. (13) Schaschke, C.; Audic, J.-L., biodegradable materials. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 2014. (14) Compton, B. G.; Lewis, J. A. 3D Printing: 3D-Printing of Lightweight Cellular Composites (Adv. Mater. 34/2014). Advanced Materials 2014, 26 (34), 6043-6043. (15) O'brien, F. J. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Materials today 2011, 14 (3), 88-95. (16) Studart, A. R. Additive manufacturing of biologically-inspired materials. Chemical Society Reviews 2016, 45 (2), 359-376. (17) Murphy, S. V.; Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature biotechnology 2014, 32 (8), 773. (18) Hulbert, S.; Young, F.; Mathews, R.; Klawitter, J.; Talbert, C.; Stelling, F. Potential of ceramic materials as permanently implantable skeletal prostheses. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 1970, 4 (3), 433-456. (19) Jones, A. C.; Arns, C. H.; Sheppard, A. P.; Hutmacher, D. W.; Milthorpe, B. K.; Knackstedt, M. A. Assessment of bone ingrowth into porous biomaterials using MICRO-CT. Biomaterials 2007, 28 (15), 2491-2504. (20) Murphy, C. M.; Haugh, M. G.; O'Brien, F. J. The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2010, 31 (3), 461-466. (21) Wake, M. C.; Patrick Jr, C. W.; Mikos, A. G. Pore morphology effects on the fibrovascular tissue growth in porous polymer substrates. Cell transplantation 1994, 3 (4), 339-343. (22) Sicchieri, L. G.; Crippa, G. E.; de Oliveira, P. T.; Beloti, M. M.; Rosa, A. L. Pore size regulates cell and tissue interactions with PLGA–CaP scaffolds used for bone engineering. Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine 2012, 6 (2), 155-162.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
29
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622
Page 30 of 43
(23) Karageorgiou, V.; Kaplan, D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 2005, 26 (27), 5474-5491. (24) Rajendran, T.; Venugopalan, S. Role of Polylactic Acid in Bone Regeneration-A Systematic Review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research 2015, 7 (11), 960. (25) Ritz, U.; Gerke, R.; Götz, H.; Stein, S.; Rommens, P. M. A New Bone Substitute Developed from 3D-Prints of Polylactide (PLA) Loaded with Collagen I: An In Vitro Study. International journal of molecular sciences 2017, 18 (12), 2569. (26) Revati, R.; Majid, M. A.; Normahira, M. Biodegradable Poly (lactic acid) Scaffold for Tissue Engineering: A Brief Review. Journal of Polymer Science and Technology 2016, 1 (1), 16-24. (27) Hu, J.; Liu, X.; Ma, P. X. Induction of osteoblast differentiation phenotype on poly (L-lactic acid) nanofibrous matrix. Biomaterials 2008, 29 (28), 3815-3821. (28) Rosenzweig, D. H.; Carelli, E.; Steffen, T.; Jarzem, P.; Haglund, L. 3D-printed ABS and PLA scaffolds for cartilage and nucleus pulposus tissue regeneration. International journal of molecular sciences 2015, 16 (7), 15118-15135. (29) Ramirez-Garcia-Luna, J. L.; Wong, T. H.; Chan, D.; Al-Saran, Y.; Awlia, A.; Abou-Rjeili, M.; Ouellet, S.; Akoury, E.; Lemarié, C. A.; Henderson, J. E. Defective bone repair in diclofenac treated C57Bl6 mice with and without lipopolysaccharide induced systemic inflammation. Journal of cellular physiology 2019, 234 (3), 3078-3087. (30) Rosenzweig, D. H.; Carelli, E.; Steffen, T.; Jarzem, P.; Haglund, L. 3D-Printed ABS and PLA Scaffolds for Cartilage and Nucleus Pulposus Tissue Regeneration. Int J Mol Sci 2015, 16 (7), 15118-35, DOI: 10.3390/ijms160715118. (31) Hoemann, C. D. Molecular and biochemical assays of cartilage components. Methods in molecular medicine 2004, 101, 127-56, DOI: 10.1385/1-59259-821-8:127. (32) Oike, Y.; Kimata, K.; Shinomura, T.; Nakazawa, K.; Suzuki, S. Structural analysis of chickembryo cartilage proteoglycan by selective degradation with chondroitin lyases (chondroitinases) and endo-β-D-galactosidase (keratanase). Biochemical Journal 1980, 191 (1), 193-207. (33) Gardner, O. F.; Alini, M.; Stoddart, M. J. Mesenchymal stem cells derived from human bone marrow. In Cartilage Tissue Engineering; Springer: 2015; pp 41-52. (34) Livak, K. J.; Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods 2001, 25 (4), 402-8, DOI: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262. (35) Gronthos, S.; Zannettino, A. C.; Hay, S. J.; Shi, S.; Graves, S. E.; Kortesidis, A.; Simmons, P. J. Molecular and cellular characterisation of highly purified stromal stem cells derived from human bone marrow. Journal of cell science 2003, 116 (9), 1827-1835. (36) Zainuddin, A.; Chua, K. H.; Rahim, N. A.; Makpol, S. Effect of experimental treatment on GAPDH mRNA expression as a housekeeping gene in human diploid fibroblasts. BMC molecular biology 2010, 11 (1), 59. (37) Mostafa, N. Z.; Fitzsimmons, R.; Major, P. W.; Adesida, A.; Jomha, N.; Jiang, H.; Uludağ, H. Osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells cultured with dexamethasone, vitamin D3, basic fibroblast growth factor, and bone morphogenetic protein-2. Connective tissue research 2012, 53 (2), 117-131.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
30
Page 31 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
(38) Nordestgaard, B.; Rostgaard, J. Critical-point drying versus freeze drying for scanning electron microscopy: a quantitative and qualitative study on isolated hepatocytes. Journal of microscopy 1985, 137 (2), 189-207. (39) Lakatos, É.; Magyar, L.; Bojtár, I. Material properties of the mandibular trabecular bone. Journal of medical engineering 2014, 2014. (40) Zigang, G.; Lishan, W.; Boon Chin, H.; Tian, X. F.; Kai, L.; Tai Weng Fan, V.; Jin Fei, Y.; Tong, C.; Tan, E. Proliferation and differentiation of human osteoblasts within 3D printed poly-lactic-coglycolic acid scaffolds. Journal of biomaterials applications 2009, 23 (6), 533-47, DOI: 10.1177/0885328208094301. (41) Ghayor, C.; Weber, F. E. Osteoconductive microarchitecture of bone substitutes for bone regeneration revisited. Frontiers in physiology 2018, 9, 960. (42) Bernstein, A.; Niemeyer, P.; Salzmann, G.; Südkamp, N.; Hube, R.; Klehm, J.; Menzel, M.; von Eisenhart-Rothe, R.; Bohner, M.; Görz, L. Microporous calcium phosphate ceramics as tissue engineering scaffolds for the repair of osteochondral defects: histological results. Acta biomaterialia 2013, 9 (7), 7490-7505. (43) Polak, S.; Rustom, L.; Genin, G.; Talcott, M.; Johnson, A. W. A mechanism for effective cellseeding in rigid, microporous substrates. Acta biomaterialia 2013, 9 (8), 7977-7986. (44) Ang, K.; Leong, K.; Chua, C.; Chandrasekaran, M. Compressive properties and degradability of poly (ε-caprolatone)/hydroxyapatite composites under accelerated hydrolytic degradation. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 2007, 80 (3), 655-660. (45) Goldstein, S. A. The mechanical properties of trabecular bone: dependence on anatomic location and function. Journal of biomechanics 1987, 20 (11-12), 1055-1061. (46) Hung, B. P.; Naved, B. A.; Nyberg, E. L.; Dias, M.; Holmes, C. A.; Elisseeff, J. H.; Dorafshar, A. H.; Grayson, W. L. Three-dimensional printing of bone extracellular matrix for craniofacial regeneration. ACS biomaterials science & engineering 2016, 2 (10), 1806-1816. (47) Starosolski, Z. A.; Kan, J. H.; Rosenfeld, S. D.; Krishnamurthy, R.; Annapragada, A. Application of 3-D printing (rapid prototyping) for creating physical models of pediatric orthopedic disorders. Pediatric radiology 2014, 44 (2), 216-221. (48) Kakarala, G.; Toms, A. D.; Kuiper, J.-H. Stereolithographic models for biomechanical testing. The Knee 2006, 13 (6), 451-454. (49) AlAli, A. B.; Griffin, M. F.; Butler, P. E. Three-dimensional printing surgical applications. Eplasty 2015, 15. (50) Inzana, J. A.; Olvera, D.; Fuller, S. M.; Kelly, J. P.; Graeve, O. A.; Schwarz, E. M.; Kates, S. L.; Awad, H. A. 3D printing of composite calcium phosphate and collagen scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomaterials 2014, 35 (13), 4026-4034. (51) Bose, S.; Vahabzadeh, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Materials today 2013, 16 (12), 496-504. (52) Gómez, S.; Vlad, M.; López, J.; Fernández, E. Design and properties of 3D scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Acta biomaterialia 2016, 42, 341-350. (53) Galvez, M.; Asahi, T.; Baar, A.; Carcuro, G.; Cuchacovich, N.; Fuentes, J. A.; Mardones, R.; Montoya, C. E.; Negrin, R.; Otayza, F.; Rojas, G. M.; Chahin, A. Use of Three-dimensional Printing in Orthopaedic Surgical Planning. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2018, 2 (5), e071, DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00071.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
31
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709
Page 32 of 43
(54) Campana, V.; Milano, G.; Pagano, E.; Barba, M.; Cicione, C.; Salonna, G.; Lattanzi, W.; Logroscino, G. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 2014, 25 (10), 2445-2461. (55) Lichte, P.; Pape, H.; Pufe, T.; Kobbe, P.; Fischer, H. Scaffolds for bone healing: concepts, materials and evidence. Injury 2011, 42 (6), 569-573. (56) Puppi, D.; Chiellini, F.; Piras, A.; Chiellini, E. Polymeric materials for bone and cartilage repair. Progress in polymer Science 2010, 35 (4), 403-440. (57) Zhang, H.; Mao, X.; Du, Z.; Jiang, W.; Han, X.; Zhao, D.; Han, D.; Li, Q. Three dimensional printed macroporous polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for promoting bone formation in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model. Science and Technology of advanced MaTerialS 2016, 17 (1), 136-148. (58) Kirker-Head, C.; Karageorgiou, V.; Hofmann, S.; Fajardo, R.; Betz, O.; Merkle, H.; Hilbe, M.; Von Rechenberg, B.; McCool, J.; Abrahamsen, L. BMP-silk composite matrices heal critically sized femoral defects. Bone 2007, 41 (2), 247-255. (59) Rankin, T. M.; Giovinco, N. A.; Cucher, D. J.; Watts, G.; Hurwitz, B.; Armstrong, D. G. Threedimensional printing surgical instruments: are we there yet? Journal of Surgical Research 2014, 189 (2), 193-197. (60) Ayoub, A.; Rehab, M.; O’neil, M.; Khambay, B.; Ju, X.; Barbenel, J.; Naudi, K. A novel approach for planning orthognathic surgery: the integration of dental casts into three-dimensional printed mandibular models. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2014, 43 (4), 454-459. (61) Mandrycky, C.; Wang, Z.; Kim, K.; Kim, D. H. 3D bioprinting for engineering complex tissues. Biotechnol Adv 2016, 34 (4), 422-434, DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.12.011. (62) Seol, Y.-J.; Kang, H.-W.; Lee, S. J.; Atala, A.; Yoo, J. J. Bioprinting technology and its applications. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 2014, 46 (3), 342-348. (63) Li, J.; Chen, M.; Fan, X.; Zhou, H. Recent advances in bioprinting techniques: approaches, applications and future prospects. Journal of translational medicine 2016, 14 (1), 271. (64) Ozbolat, I. T.; Peng, W.; Ozbolat, V. Application areas of 3D bioprinting. Drug Discovery Today 2016, 21 (8), 1257-1271. (65) Kolesky, D. B.; Truby, R. L.; Gladman, A. S.; Busbee, T. A.; Homan, K. A.; Lewis, J. A. 3D bioprinting of vascularized, heterogeneous cell-laden tissue constructs. Advanced materials 2014, 26 (19), 3124-3130. (66) Saijo, H.; Igawa, K.; Kanno, Y.; Mori, Y.; Kondo, K.; Shimizu, K.; Suzuki, S.; Chikazu, D.; Iino, M.; Anzai, M. Maxillofacial reconstruction using custom-made artificial bones fabricated by inkjet printing technology. Journal of Artificial Organs 2009, 12 (3), 200-205. (67) Zopf, D. A.; Hollister, S. J.; Nelson, M. E.; Ohye, R. G.; Green, G. E. Bioresorbable airway splint created with a three-dimensional printer. New England Journal of Medicine 2013, 368 (21), 20432045. (68) Perticarini, L.; Zanon, G.; Rossi, S. M.; Benazzo, F. M. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a trabecular titanium acetabular component in hip arthroplasty: results at minimum 5 years followup. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015, 16, 375, DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0822-9. (69) Zhang, H.; Mao, X.; Du, Z.; Jiang, W.; Han, X.; Zhao, D.; Han, D.; Li, Q. Three dimensional printed macroporous polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for promoting bone formation in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model. Sci Technol Adv Mater 2016, 17 (1), 136148, DOI: 10.1080/14686996.2016.1145532.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
32
Page 33 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
710 711 712 713
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
(70) Dong, L.; Wang, S. J.; Zhao, X. R.; Zhu, Y. F.; Yu, J. K. 3D- Printed Poly(epsilon-caprolactone) Scaffold Integrated with Cell-laden Chitosan Hydrogels for Bone Tissue Engineering. Sci Rep 2017, 7 (1), 13412, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13838-7.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
33
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Desktop 3D-printer generating high-resolution PLA structures mimicking native tissues. PLA scaffolds, with different pore sizes (500 µm, 750 µm and 1000 µm), were fabricated. Scaffolds were cell seeded with primary human osteoblasts and compared for cell growth, activity, and bone-like tissue formation, in which 750 µm pore size scaffolds showed superiority over the other sizes. Further experiments confirmed the ability in supporting osteogenic differentiation of human MSC on 750 µm pore scaffolds. These findings suggest that low-cost 750 µm pores-size 3D printed scaffolds may be suitable as a bone substitute for repair of bone defects.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 34 of 43
Page 35 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
COVER ART: Desktop 3D-printer generating high-resolution PLA structures mimicking native tissues. PLA scaffolds, with different pore sizes (500 µm, 750 µm and 1000 µm), were fabricated. Scaffolds were cell seeded with primary human osteoblasts and compared for cell growth, activity, and bone-like tissue formation, in which 750 µm pore size scaffolds showed superiority over the other sizes. Further experiments confirmed the ability in supporting osteogenic differentiation of human MSC on 750 µm pore scaffolds. These findings suggest that low-cost 750 µm pores-size 3D printed scaffolds may be suitable as a bone substitute for repair of bone defects.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Figure 1. Morphological characterization of 3D printed scaffolds. A) Representative images of the 3D models with dimensions and printing process. B) Quantification of scaffold weight, (n = 6), error bars represent ± SD (** = P value < 0.005), (# = P value < 0.0001), with a representative image of printed scaffolds (Canon EOS 350d Camera). C) Pore size was calculated by Scanning Electron Microscopy, and porosity was determined by µ-CT. For each set, (n = 3), error bars represent ± SD and (* = P value < 0.05), (** = P value < 0.005), (# = P value < 0.0001).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 36 of 43
Page 37 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Figure 2. Mechanical properties of 3D printed scaffolds. A) Young’s modulus representing 5-10% compressive stress/strain curves of printed PLA scaffolds. For each set, (n = 3), error bars represent ± SD and (* = P value < 0.05), (# = P value < 0.0001). B) Stress/Strain curves of (500 µm, 750 µm and 1000µm) showing the amount of deformation, Elastic (proportionality) limit and plastic region. For each set, (n = 3).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Figure 3. Scanning electron microscopy of acellular and cell-seeded scaffolds. Representative SEM images of (acellular, Osteoblasts, MSC-OST seeded scaffolds) at 80x, 450x, 1500x and 22000x magnifications and scale bars represents 1 mm, 200 µm, 50 µm and 5 µm with rectangular marker indicating the region of scan (n = 3).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 38 of 43
Page 39 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Figure 4. Primary human osteoblast culture on 3D printed scaffolds. A) Representative images of Bright field microscopy images (phase contrast) of osteoblast-seeded scaffolds during culture period at 10× magnification (n = 6). Black arrows indicate cell growth and neo-tissue deposition. Scale bar represents 500 µm. B) DNA quantification of osteoblast/scaffold using HOECHST 33258 Assay. Horizontal line in the middle of the graph represents 5 x 10 cells. (n = 3) Error bars 5
represent ± SD and (** = P value < 0.005), (*** = P value < 0.0005), (# = P value < 0.0001). C) Representative image of fixed acellular and osteoblast-seeded PLA scaffolds of (500 µm, 750 µm and 1000 µm) pore size stained with Alizarin Red-S stain after 21 days culture (n = 3). Marker represent 10x10 mm squares dimensions and stain quantification using Alizarin Red osteogenesis
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
kit (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD and (** = P value < 0.005), (*** = P value < 0.0005). D) Representative Western blot for Osteopontin (OPN) accumulation and densitometry quantification (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD, (* = P value < 0.05), (*** = P value < 0.0005).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 40 of 43
Page 41 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Figure 5. Human MSCs culture on medium sized scaffolds. A) Representative images of Bright field microscopy (phase contrast) of MSC-seeded scaffolds (osteogenic vs standard culture) during culture period at 10× magnification (n = 6). Black arrows indicate cell growth and neo-tissue deposition. Scale bar represents 500 µm. B) DNA quantification of MSC/scaffold (osteogenic vs standard culture) using HOECHST 33258. Horizontal line in the middle of the graph represents 500 000 cells. (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD. C) Fixed acellular, and MSC-seeded PLA scaffolds of (osteogenic vs standard culture) stained with Alizarin Red-S stain after 21 days culture. Representative images (n = 3) of Alizarin Red-S staining with marker representing 10x10 mm squares Error bars represent ± SD, (# = P value < 0.0001). D) qPCR analysis of osteogenic markers after 21 days culture. Expression levels were normalized to GAPDH with fold change
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 42 of 43
compared to standard culture media (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD, (* = P value < 0.05) (# = P value < 0.0001). E) Representative Western blot for Osteopontin (OPN) accumulation and densitometry quantification (n = 3) Error bars represent ± SD, (** = P value < 0.005).
Table 1. Sequence of the forward and reverse primers used for the q-PCR. Target gene
Forward primer (5'-3')
Reserved primer (5'-3')
hGAPDH
TCCCTGAGCTGAACGGGAAG
GGAGGAGTGGGTGTCGCTGT
BSP
AAGCTCCAGCCTGGGATGA
TATTGCACCTTCCTGAGTTGAACT
ON
TCCGTACGGCAGCCACTAC
GCATGGCTCTCAAGCACTTG
RUNX-2
TCAGCCCAGAACTGAGAAACTC
TTATCACAGATGGTCCCTAATGGT
ALP
AGAACCCCAAAGGCTTCTTC
CTTGGCTTTTCCTTCATGGT
hCol1a1
AGGGCTCCAACGAGATCGAGATCCG
TACAGGAAGCAGACAGGGCCAACG
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 43 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Table 2. µCT Characterization of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds Variable
Small pore size
Medium pore size
Large pore size
SV/RV (%)
54.2 ± 10.4
33.9 ± 5.4
29.9 ± 2.8
SS (mm )
630.9 ± 18.9
489.2 ± 21.5
371.6 ± 8.6
SF.N (1/mm)
0.94 ± 0.04
0.64 ± 0.04
0.62 ± 0.01
SF.Th (µm)
460.5 ± 34.9
467.4 ± 17.2
439.3 ± 35.7
SF.Sp (µm)
577.1 ± 66.0
798.9 ± 93.9
1,005 ± 42.4
Po.Tot (%)
45.8 ± 7.4
66.1 ± 5.4
83.9 ± 4.9
2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment