Comparison of different three dimensional-printed resorbable materials: In vitro biocompatibility,In vitro degradation rate,and cell differentiation support

Abstract

Biodegradable materials play a crucial role in both material and medical sciences and are frequently used as a primary commodity for implants generation. Due to their material inherent properties, they are supposed to be entirely resorbed by the patients' body after fulfilling their task as a scaffold. This makes a second intervention (e.g. for implant removal) redundant and significantly enhances a patient’s post-operative life quality. At the moment, materials for resorbable and biodegradable implants (e.g. polylactic acid or poly-caprolactone polymers) are still intensively studied. They are able to provide mandatory demands such as mechanical strength and attributes needed for high-quality implants. Implants, however, not only need to be made of adequate material, but must also to be personalized in order to meet the customers’ needs. Combining three dimensional-printing and high-resolution imaging technologies a new age of implant production comes into sight. Three dimensional images (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) of tissue defects can be utilized as digital blueprints for personalized implants. Modern additive manufacturing devices are able to use a variety of materials to fabricate custom parts within short periods of time. The combination of high-quality resorbable materials and personalized three dimensional-printing for the custom application will provide the patients with the best suitable and sustainable implants. In this study, we evaluated and compared four resorbable and three dimensional printable materials for their in vitro biocompatibility, in vitro rate of degradation, cell adherence and behavior on these materials as well as support of osteogenic differentiation of human adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. The tests were conducted with model constructs of 1 cm² surface area fabricated with fused deposition modeling three dimensional-printing technology.

Keywords

Additive manufacturing mesenchymal stem cells non-permanent implants osteogenic differentiation RESOMERS®resorbable polymers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Becker

MJ.

Ancient “dental implants”: a recently proposed example from France evaluated with other spurious examples. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 19–29.

Burkarth

Handprothese des Götz von Berlichingen. Landesstelle.de 2010; 1.

Barrows

Degradable implant materials: a review of synthetic absorbable polymers and their applications. Clin Mater 1986; 1: 233–257.

FDA. implants and prosthetics. FDA 2015; 1.

Wintermantel

S-W.

Medizintechnik life science engineering. In: Medizintechnik life science engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp.269–290.

S-W

Wintermantel

Maier

Polymere. In: Medizintechnik life science engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp.211–268.

S-W.

Metalle. In: Medizintechnik life science engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp.183–209.

Pina

Ferreira

Bioresorbable plates and screws for clinical applications: a review. J Healthc Eng 2012; 3: 243–260.

Serra

Mateos-Timoneda

Planell

et al . 3D printed PLA-based scaffolds: a versatile tool in regenerative medicine. Organogenesis 2013; 9: 239–244.

10.

Ventola

CL.

Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. P T 2014; 39: 704–711.

11.

Raddatz

Austerjost

Beutel

3D-Druck: Chancen, Möglichkeiten, Risiken. Chemie unserer Zeit. Epub ahead of print 6 September 2017. DOI: 10.1002/ciuz.201700802.

12.

Raddatz

Vries

Austerjost

et al . Additive manufactured customizable labware for biotechnological purposes. Eng Life Sci 2017; 17: 931–939.

13.

Ude

Hentrop

Lindner

et al . New perspectives in shake flask pH control using a 3D-printed control unit based on pH online measurement. Sens Actuators B Chem 2015; 221: 1035–1043.

14.

Lücking

Sambale

Schnaars

et al . 3D-printed individual labware in biosciences by rapid prototyping: in vitro biocompatibility and applications for eukaryotic cell cultures. Eng Life Sci 2015; 15: 57–64.

15.

Funke

Diederichs

Kensy

et al . The baffled microtiter plate: increased oxygen transfer and improved online monitoring in small scale fermentations. Biotechnol Bioeng 2009; 103: 1118–1128.

16.

Russon

M-A.

China: recycled concrete houses 3D-printed in 24 hours. International Business Times, 24 April 2014, www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-recycled-concrete-houses-3d-printed-24-hours-1445981 (24 April 2014, accessed 10 January 2017).

17.

Kellner

Jet engines with 3D-printed parts power next-gen airbus passenger jet, www.gereports.com/post/119370423770/jet-engines-with-3d-printed-parts-power-next-gen/ (2015, accessed 17 January 2018).

18.

Hull

CW.

EP0171069A2.pdfEP0171069, USA, https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=EP&NR=0171069A2&KC=A2&FT=D&ND=3&date=19860212& DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP (1986, accessed 23 January 2018).

19.

Mertz

Dream it, design it, print it in 3-D: what can 3-D printing do for you?.

IEEE Pulse 2013; 4: 15–21.

20.

Gentsch

Börner

HG.

Designing three-dimensional materials at the interface to biology. In: Börner HG, Lutz J-F (eds) Bioactive surfaces – advances in polymer science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010, pp.163–192.

21.

Teoh

JEM

Suntornnond

et al . Design and 3D printing of scaffolds and tissues. Engineering 2015; 1: 261–268.

22.

Grund

Implementierung von schichtadditiven fertigungsverfahren. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-44266-1.

23.

Banks

Adding value in additive manufacturing: researchers in the United Kingdom and Europe look to 3D printing for customization. IEEE Pulse. Epub ahead of print 2013. DOI: 10.1109/MPUL.2013.2279617 (accessed 23 November 2013)

24.

Bartlett

Printing organs on demand. Lancet Respir Med. Epub ahead of print 2013. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70239-X (accessed 04 November 2013)

25.

Mertz

New world of 3-D printing offers ‘completely new ways of thinking’: Q&A with author, engineer, and 3-D printing expert Hod Lipson. IEEE Pulse. Epub ahead of print 2013. DOI: 10.1109/MPUL.2013.2279615 (accessed 06 November 2013).

26.

Windhagen

Radtke

Weizbauer

et al. Biodegradable magnesium-based screw clinically equivalent to titanium screw in hallux valgus surgery: short term results of the first prospective, randomized, controlled clinical pilot study. Biomed Eng Online 2013. DOI: 10.1186/1475-925X-12-62.

27.

Jammalamadaka

Tappa

Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D printing and tissue engineering. J Funct Biomater 2018; 9: 22

28.

W-G

Jang

Kim

et al . Systemically replicated organic and inorganic bony microenvironment for new bone formation generated by a 3D printing technology. RSC Adv 2016; 6: 11546–11553.

29.

Chia

BM.

Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng 9. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s13036-015-0001-4 (accessed 01 February 2015).

30.

Cui

Zhu

Nowicki

et al . Hierarchical fabrication of engineered vascularized bone biphasic constructs via dual 3D bioprinting: integrating regional bioactive factors into architectural design. Adv Healthc Mater 2016; 5: 2174–2181.

31.

Kirkland

Waterman

Birbilis

et al . Buffer-regulated biocorrosion of pure magnesium. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2012; 23: 283–291.

32.

ISO 10993-5:2009: Biological evaluation of medical devices – part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. Epub ahead of print 2009. DOI: 10.5594/J09750 (accessed June 2009)

33.

Eblenkamp

Neuss-Stein

Salber

et al . Stammzellen. In: Medizintechnik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp.443–471.

34.

Bose

Vahabzadeh

Bandyopadhyay

Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Mater Today 2013; 16: 496–504.

35.

Agrawal

McKinney

Lanctot

et al . Effects of fluid flow on the in vitro degradation kinetics of biodegradable scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2000; 21: 2443–2452.

36.

Sarstedt und Co. Zell-und Gewebekultur, 2016, 1–21.

37.

van Kooten

Spijker

Busscher

HJ.

Plasma-treated polystyrene surfaces: model surfaces for studying cell-biomaterial interactions. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 1735–1747.

38.

Yang

Bei

Wang

Enhanced cell affinity of poly (d,l-lactide) by combining plasma treatment with collagen anchorage. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 2607–2614.

39.

Jacobs

Declercq

De Geyter

et al . Plasma surface modification of polylactic acid to promote interaction with fibroblasts. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2013; 24: 469–478.

40.

Busse

Bhandari

Kulkarnim

et al . The effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on time to fracture healing: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2002; 166: 437–441.

41.

Evonik Industries. Bioresorbable polymers for new directions in therapy development, http://healthcare.evonik.com/product/health-care/en/products/biomaterials/RESOMER/ (2016, accessed 22 January 2018).

42.

Hillsley

Frangos

JA.

Review: bone tissue engineering: the role of interstitial fluid flow. Biotechnol Bioeng 1994; 43: 573–581.

43.

Fritton

Weinbaum

Fluid and solute transport in bone: flow-induced mechanotransduction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2009; 41: 347–374.

44.

Malfroy Camine

Terrier

Pioletti

DP.

Micromotion-induced peri-prosthetic fluid flow around a cementless femoral stem. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2017; 20: 730–736.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB