Investigating the Influence of Architecture and Material Composition of 3D Printed Anatomical Design Scaffolds for Large Bone Defects

© Invalid date by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Download PDF

Cite

XML

Abstract

There is a significant unmet clinical need to prevent amputations due to large bone loss injuries. We are addressing this problem by developing a novel, cost-effective osseointegrated prosthetic solution based on the use of modular pieces, bone bricks, made with biocompatible and biodegradable materials that fit together in a Lego-like way to form the prosthesis. This paper investigates the anatomical designed bone bricks with different architectures, pore size gradients, and material compositions. Polymer and polymer-composite 3D printed bone bricks are extensively morphological, mechanical, and biological characterized. Composite bone bricks were produced by mixing polycaprolactone (PCL) with different levels of hydroxyapatite (HA) and β-tri-calcium phosphate (TCP). Results allowed to establish a correlation between bone bricks architecture and material composition and bone bricks performance. Reinforced bone bricks showed improved mechanical and biological results. Best mechanical properties were obtained with PCL/TCP bone bricks with 38 double zig-zag filaments and 14 spiral-like pattern filaments, while the best biological results were obtained with PCL/HA bone bricks based on 25 double zig-zag filaments and 14 spiral-like pattern filaments.

Keywords

Biomanufacturing

Bone grafts

Hydroxyapatite

Polycaprolactone

β-Tri-calcium phosphate

Tissue engineering

References

1. Dilogo I, Primaputra M, Pawitan J, et al., 2017, Modified Masquelet Technique Using Allogeneic Umbilical Cord-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Infected Non-union Femoral Shaft Fracture with a 12 cm Bone Defect: A Case Report. Int J Surg Case Rep, 34:11–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.03.002.

2. Wiese A, Pape H, 2010, Bone Defects Caused by High-energy Injuries, Bone Loss, Infected Nonunions, and Nonunions. Orthop Clin North Am, 41:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.003.

3. Giannoudis P, Einhorn T, Marsh D, 2007, Fracture Healing: The Diamond Concept. Injury, 38:S3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(08)70003-2.

4. DeCoster T, Gehlert R, Mikola E, et al., 2004, Management of Posttraumatic Segmental Bone Defects. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 12:28–38.

5. Moghaddam A, Thaler B, Bruckner T, et al., 2017, Treatment of Atrophic Femoral Non-unions According to the Diamond Concept: Results of One-and Two-step Surgical Procedure. J Orthop, 14:123–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2016.10.003.

6. Scholz A, Gehrmann S, Glombitza M, et al., 2015, Reconstruction of Septic Diaphyseal Bone Defects with the Induced Membrane Technique. Injury, 46:S121–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30030-9.

7. Calori G, Colombo M, Ripamonti C, et al., 2014, Megaprosthesis in Large Bone Defects: Opportunity or Chimaera? Injury, 45:388–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.09.015.

8. Calori G, Colombo M, Malagoli E, et al., 2014, Megaprosthesis in Post-traumatic and Periprosthetic Large Bone Defects: Issues to Consider. Injury, 45:S105–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.032.

9. Parvizi J, Sim F, 2004, Proximal Femoral Replacements with Megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 420:169–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200403000-00023.

10. Vaishya R, Singh A, Hasija R, et al., 2011, Treatment of Resistant Nonunion of Supracondylar Fractures Femur by Megaprosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 19:1137–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1416-1.

11. Ashman O, Phillips A, 2013, Treatment of Non-unions with Bone Defects: Which Option and Why? Injury, 44:S43–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(13)70010-x.

12. Papakostidis C, Bhandari M, Giannoudis P, 2013, Distraction Osteogenesis in the Treatment of Long Bone Defects of the Lower Limbs. Bone Joint J, 95-B:1673–80. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.95b12.32385.

13. Masquelet A, Begue T, 2010, The Concept of Induced Membrane for Reconstruction of Long Bone Defects. Orthop Clin North Am, 41:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.011.

14. Taylor B, French B, Fowler T, et al., 2012, Induced Membrane Technique for Reconstruction to Manage Bone Loss. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 20:142–50.

15. Taylor B, Hancock J, Zitzke R, et al., 2015, Treatment of Bone Loss with the Induced Membrane Technique. J Orthop Trauma, 29:554–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0000000000000338.

16. Beris A, Lykissas M, Korompilias A, et al., 2011, Vascularized Fibula Transfer for Lower Limb Reconstruction. Microsurgery, 31:205–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.20841.

17. Denry I, Kuhn L, 2016, Design and Characterization of Calcium Phosphate Ceramic Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Dent Mater, 32:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.008.

18. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A, et al., 2014, Bone Regenerative Medicine: Classic Options, Novel Strategies, and Future Directions. J Orthop Surg Res, 9:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799x-9-18.

19. Tang D, Tare R, Yang L, et al., 2016, Biofabrication of Bone Tissue: Approaches, Challenges and Translation for Bone Regeneration. Biomaterials, 83:363–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.024.

20. Borra R, Lotufo M, Gagioti S, et al., 2009, A Simple Method to Measure Cell Viability in Proliferation and Cytotoxicity Assays. Braz Oral Res, 23:255–62. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242009000300006.

21. Lichte P, Pape H, Pufe T, et al., 2011, Scaffolds for Bone Healing: Concepts, Materials and Evidence. Injury, 42:569– 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.033.

22. Liu F, Huang B, Hinduja S, et al., 2019, Biofabrication Techniques for Ceramics and Composite Bone Scaffolds. In: Antoniac I, editor. Bioceramics and Biocomposites: From Research to Clinical Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119372097.ch2.

23. Bartolo P, Kruth J, Silva J, et al., 2012, Biomedical Production of Implants by Additive Electro-chemical and Physical Processes. CIRP Ann, 61:635–55.

24. Bártolo P, Chua C, Almeida H, et al., 2009, Biomanufacturing for Tissue Engineering: Present and Future Trends. Virtual Phys Prototyp, 4:203–16.

25. Lee J, Ng W, Yeong W, 2019, Resolution and Shape in Bioprinting: Strategizing towards Complex Tissue and Organ Printing. Appl Phys Rev, 6:011307. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5053909.

26. Ng W, Chua C, Shen Y, 2019, Print Me An Organ! Why We Are Not There Yet. Prog Polym Sci, 97:101145. DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.101145.

27. Vega-Avila E, Pugsley MK, 2011, An Overview of Colorimetric Assay Methods Used to Assess Survival or Proliferation of Mammalian Cells. Proc West Pharmacol Soc, 54:10–4.

28. Huang B, Caetano G, Vyas C, et al., 2018, Polymer-Ceramic Composite Scaffolds: The Effect of Hydroxyapatite and β-tri- Calcium Phosphate. Materials, 11:129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11010129.

29. Lotz J, Gerhart T, Hayes W, 1990, Mechanical Properties of Trabecular Bone from the Proximal Femur. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 14:107–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199001000-00020.

30. Thomson R, Yaszemski M, Powers J, et al., 1996, Fabrication of Biodegradable Polymer Scaffolds to Engineer Trabecular Bone. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 7:23–38.

31. Porter B, Oldham J, He SL, et al., 2000, Mechanical Properties of a Biodegradable Bone Regeneration Scaffold. J Biomech Eng, 122:286–8.

32. Williams J, Adewunmi A, Schek R, et al., 2005, Bone Tissue Engineering Using Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Fabricated via Selective Laser Sintering. Biomaterials, 26:4817–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.11.057.

Previous article in this issue

Next article in this issue

International Journal of Bioprinting, Electronic ISSN: 2424-8002 Print ISSN: 2424-7723, Published by AccScience Publishing