Poly(L-co-D,L lactic acid-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) 3D printed scaffold cultivated with mesenchymal stem cells directed to bone reconstruction: In vitro and in vivo studies
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2022
Poly(L-co-D,L lactic acid-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) 3D printed scaffold cultivated with mesenchymal stem cells directed to bone reconstruction: In vitro and in vivo studies
A recent and quite promising technique for bone tissue engineering is the 3D printing, peculiarly regarding the production of high-quality scaffolds. The 3D printed scaffold strictly provides suitable characteristics for living cells, in order to induce treatment, reconstruction and substitution of injured tissue. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the behavior of the 3D scaffold based on Poly(L-co-D,L lactic acid-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) (PLDLA-TMC), which was designed in Solidworks™ software, projected in 3D Slicer™, 3D printed in filament extrusion, cultured with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and tested in vitro and in vivo models. For in vitro study, the MSCs were seeded in a PLDLA-TMC 3D scaffold with 600 μm pore size and submitted to proliferation and osteogenic differentiation. The in vivo assays implanted the PLDLA-TMC scaffolds with or without MSCs in the calvaria of Wistar rats submitted to 8 mm cranial bone defect, in periods of 8–12 weeks. The results showed that PLDLA-TMC 3D scaffolds favored adherence and cell growth, and suggests an osteoinductive activity, which means that the material itself augmented cellular differentiation. The implanted PLDLA-TMC containing MSCs, showed better results after 12 weeks prior grafting, due the absence of inflammatory processes, enlarged regeneration of bone tissue and facilitated angiogenesis. Notwithstanding, the 3D PLDLA-TMC itself implanted enriched tissue repair; the addition of cells known to upregulate tissue healing reinforce the perspectives for the PLDLA-TMC applications in the field of bone tissue engineering in clinical trials.
JimiEHirataSOsawaK, et al.The current and future therapies of bone regeneration to repair bone defects. Int J Dentistry2012; 2012: 148261.
2.
BrydoneASMeekDMacLaineS. Bone grafting, orthopaedic biomaterials, and the clinical need for bone engineering. Proc Inst Mech Eng H: J Eng Med2010; 224: 1329–1343.
3.
WieseAPapeHC. Bone defects caused by high-energy injuries, bone loss, infected nonunions, and nonunions. Orthop Clin North America2010; 41: 1–4.
4.
HowardDButteryLDShakesheffKM, et al.Tissue engineering: strategies, stem cells and scaffolds. J Anat2008; 213: 66–72.
5.
JohnsonSCSmithZLSackBS, et al.Tissue engineering and conduit substitution. Urol Clin North America2018; 45: 133–141.
6.
SaitoNMurakamiNTakahashiJ, et al.Synthetic biodegradable polymers as drug delivery systems for bone morphogenetic proteins. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2005; 57: 1037–1048.
7.
KomatsuDHausenMAEriRY, et al.Alternative cutaneous substitutes based on poly(L-co-D,L-lactic acid-co-trimethylene carbonate) with schinus terebinthifolius raddi extract designed for skin healing. ACS Omega2019; 4: 18317–18326.
8.
KomatsuDMisturaDVMottaA, et al.Development of a membrane of poly (L-co-D,L lactic acid-co-trimethylene carbonate) with aloe vera: an alternative biomaterial designed to improve skin healing. J Biomater Appl2017; 32: 311–320.
9.
DuekJRRiquettoMLJesusDC, et al.Membrana de PLDLA-TMC como protetor na regeneração do tendão calcâneo. Estudo in Vivo em Coelhos. Polímeros2014; 1: 21.
10.
MottaACde Miranda FedrizziVBarboMLP, et al.In vitro and in vivo studies on devices of poly(l-co-d,l lactic acid)-co-TMC for bone repair. Polym Bull2018; 75: 4515–4529.
11.
MessiasADMartinsKFMottaAC, et al.Synthesis, characterization, and osteoblastic cell culture of poly(l-co-d,l-lactide-co-trimethylene carbonate) scaffolds. Int J Biomater2014; 2014: 1–7.
12.
MurphyCMHaughMGO'BrienFJ. The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2010; 31: 461–466.
13.
SinghA. Biomaterials innovation for next generation ex vivo immune tissue engineering. Biomaterials2017; 130: 104–110.
14.
ChocholataPKuldaVBabuskaV. Fabrication of scaffolds for bone-tissue regeneration. Materials2019; 12: 568.
15.
AbbasiNHamletSLoveRM, et al.Porous scaffolds for bone regeneration. J Sci Adv Mater Devices2020; 5: 1–9.
16.
PamulaEFilováEBacákováLisáLV, et al.Resorbable polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: the influence of their microstructure on the growth of human osteoblast-like MG 63 cells. J Biomed Mater Res A2008; 89: 432–443.
17.
LuXWangYJinF. Influence of a non-biodegradable porous structure on bone repair. RSC Adv2016; 6: 80522–80528.
18.
HeathCA. Cells for tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol2000; 18: 17–19.
19.
McArdleA. manipulation of stem cells and their microenvironment for tissue engineering. Surg Curr Res2013; 033.
20.
MottaACDuekEAdR. Synthesis and characterization of a novel terpolymer based on L-lactide, D,L-lactide and trimethylene carbonate. Mater Res2014; 17: 619–626.
21.
MottaACDuekEAR. Patents - INCT, PI0201100492. Brazil: INPI, Instituto Nacional da Propriedade IndustrialDeposited on 9th March, 2010.
22.
Mendes JuniorDDominguesJAHausenMA, et al.Study of mesenchymal stem cells cultured on a poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) scaffold containing simvastatin for bone healing. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater2017; 15: 133–141.
23.
PedriniFMHausenMAGomesR, et al.Enhancement of cartilage extracellular matrix synthesis in Poly(PCL–TMC)urethane scaffolds: a study of oriented dynamic flow in bioreactor. Biotechnol Lett2020; 42(12): 2721–2734.
De MulderELBumaPHanninkG. Anisotropic porous biodegradable scaffolds for musculoskeletal tissue engineering. Materials2009; 2: 1674–1696.
26.
LuoCLiaoJZhuZ, et al.Analysis of mechanical properties and mechanical anisotropy in canine bone tissues of various ages. Biomed Res Int2019; 2019: 3503152.
27.
MásBADe Luna FreireDCDe Melo CattaniSM, et al.Biological evaluation of PLDLA polymer synthesized as construct on bone tissue engineering application. Mater Res2016; 19: 300–307.
28.
SongYKamphuisMMJZhangZ, et al.Flexible and elastic porous poly(trimethylene carbonate) structures for use in vascular tissue engineering. Acta Biomater2010; 6: 1269–1277.
29.
AnselmeK. Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials2000; 21: 667–681.
30.
BaileySKarsentyGGundbergC, et al.Osteocalcin and osteopontin influence bone morphology and mechanical properties. Ann New York Acad Sci2017; 1409: 79–84.
31.
BlairHCLarroutureQCLiY, et al.Osteoblast differentiation and bone matrix formation in vivo and in vitro. Tissue Eng B: Rev2017; 23: 268–280.
32.
ZochMLClemensTLRiddleRC. New insights into the biology of osteocalcin. Bone2016; 82: 42–49.
33.
GiachelliCMSteitzS. Osteopontin: a versatile regulator of inflammation and biomineralization. Matrix Biol2000; 19: 615–622.
34.
IcerMAGezmen-KaradagM. The multiple functions and mechanisms of osteopontin. Clin Biochem2018; 59: 17–24.
35.
MazzaliMKipariTOphascharoensukV, et al.Osteopontin-a molecule for all seasons. QJM: Int J Med2002; 95: 3–13.
36.
García-GaretaECoathupMJBlunnGW. Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone2015; 81: 112–121.
37.
HabibovicPYuanHvan der ValkCM, et al.3D microenvironment as essential element for osteoinduction by biomaterials. Biomaterials2005; 26: 3565–3575.
RaoSHHariniBShadamarshanRPK, et al.Natural and synthetic polymers/bioceramics/bioactive compounds-mediated cell signalling in bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromolecules2018; 110: 88–96.
EdmondsonRBroglieJJAdcockAF, et al.Three-dimensional cell culture systems and their applications in drug discovery and cell-based biosensors. Assay Drug Develop Tech2014; 12(4): 207–218.
42.
GalowA-MReblAKoczanD, et al.Increased osteoblast viability at alkaline pH in vitro provides a new perspective on bone regeneration. Biochem Biophys Rep2017; 10: 17–25.
43.
MitchellGRTojeiraA. Role of anisotropy in tissue engineering. Proced Eng2013; 59: 117–125.
44.
KangJDongELiD, et al.Anisotropy characteristics of microstructures for bone substitutes and porous implants with application of additive manufacturing in orhopaedic. Mater Dsign; 191: 2020.
45.
CabreraARE. Processamento, Caracterização e Desempenho in vivo de Arcabouço Biorreasorvível de PLDLA-co-TMC. Doctoral Thesis. São Carlos, Brazil: Federal University of São Carlos, 2014, p. 166.
46.
AlbertssonA-CEklundM. Influence of molecular structure on the degradation mechanism of degradable polymers: In vitro degradation of poly(trimethylene carbonate), poly(trimethylene carbonate-co-caprolactone), and poly(adipic anhydride). J Appl Polym Sci1995; 57: 87–103.
47.
GuravNDi SilvioL. Biocompatibility of degradable polymers for tissue engineering. Cell Response Biomater2009: 61–84.
48.
OdeliusKHöglundAKumarS, et al.Porosity and pore size regulate the degradation product profile of polylactide. Biomacromolecules2011; 12: 1250–1258.
49.
VissersCABHarvestineJNLeachJK. Pore size regulates mesenchymal stem cell response to bioglass-loaded composite scaffolds. J Mater Chem B2015; 3: 8650–8658.
50.
SongJETripathyNShinJH, et al.In vivo bone regeneration evaluation of duck’s feet collagen/PLGA scaffolds in rat calvarial defect. Macromolecular Res2017; 25: 994–999.
51.
SouzaATPFreitasGPLopesHB, et al.Effect of cell therapy with allogeneic osteoblasts on bone repair of rat calvaria defects. Cytotherapy2018; 20: 1267–1277.
52.
ZhangHMaoXDuZ, et al.Three dimensional printed macroporous polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for promoting bone formation in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model. Sci Technol Adv Mater2016; 17: 136–148.
53.
HwangKSChoiJWKimJH, et al.Comparative efficacies of collagen-based 3D Printed PCL/PLGA/β-TCP composite block bone grafts and biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitute for bone regeneration. Materials (Basel, Switzerland)2017; 10: 1–13.
54.
ProbstFAFliefelRBurianE, et al.Bone regeneration of minipig mandibular defect by adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells seeded tri-calcium phosphate- poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds. Scientific Rep2020; 10: 2062.
55.
MessoraMRNagataMJHDornellesRCM, et al.Bone healing in critical-size defects treated with platelet-rich plasma activated by two different methods. A histologic and histometric study in rat calvaria. J Periodontal Res2008; 43: 723–729.
56.
Conde-GonzálezADuttaDWallaceR, et al.Rapid fabrication and screening of tailored functional 3D biomaterials. Mater Sci Eng C2019; 108: 1–31.
57.
QaziTHMooneyDJDudaGN, et al.Biomaterials that promote cell-cell interactions enhance the paracrine function of MSCs. Biomaterials2017; 140: 103–114.
58.
BobbertFSLZadpoorAA. Effects of bone substitute architecture and surface properties on cell response, angiogenesis, and structure of new bone. J Mater Chem B2017; 5: 6175–6192.
59.
MukherjeeSDarziSPaulK, et al.Mesenchymal stem cell-based bioengineered constructs: foreign body response, cross-talk with macrophages and impact of biomaterial design strategies for pelvic floor disorders. Interf Focus2019; 9: 20180089–20180115.
60.
MuneratoMSBiguettiCCParra da SilvaRB, et al.Inflammatory response and macrophage polarization using different physicochemical biomaterials for oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2020; 107: 110229–110326.
61.
ChenLLiuGWuJ, et al.Multi-faceted effects of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) determined by immune microenvironment and their implications on MSC/biomaterial-based inflammatory disease therapy. Appl Mater Today2020; 18: 1–14.
62.
JehnPWinterboerJKampmannA, et al.Angiogenic effects of mesenchymal stem cells in combination with different scaffold materials. Microvasc Res2020; 127: 103925–104011.
63.
YoonEDharSChunDE, et al.In vivoosteogenic potential of human adipose-derived stem cells/poly lactide-co-glycolic acid constructs for bone regeneration in a rat critical-sized Calvarial defect model. Tissue Eng2007; 13: 619–627.
64.
GroppoMFCariaPHFreireAR, et al.The effect of a hydroxyapatite impregnated PCL membrane in rat subcritical calvarial bone defects. Arch Oral Biol2017; 82: 209–215.
