Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T05:25:53.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indirect versus direct 3D printing of hydrogel scaffolds for adipose tissue regeneration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2020

Lana Van Damme ,
Emilie Briant ,
Phillip Blondeel  and
Sandra Van Vlierberghe
Lana Van Damme
Affiliation:
Polymer Chemistry & Biomaterials Group – Centre of Macromolecular Chemistry (CMaC) – Gent Alliance for Tissue Engineering (GATE) – Department of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, S4-Bis, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Emilie Briant
Affiliation:
Polymer Chemistry & Biomaterials Group – Centre of Macromolecular Chemistry (CMaC) – Gent Alliance for Tissue Engineering (GATE) – Department of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, S4-Bis, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Phillip Blondeel
Affiliation:
Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 2K12, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Sandra Van Vlierberghe*
Affiliation:
Polymer Chemistry & Biomaterials Group – Centre of Macromolecular Chemistry (CMaC) – Gent Alliance for Tissue Engineering (GATE) – Department of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, S4-Bis, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: Prof. Sandra Van Vlierberghe Sandra.VanVlierberghe@UGent.be
Get access

Abstract

There exists a need for an innovative reconstructive approach for breast reconstruction, tackling current drawbacks and limitations present in the clinic. In this respect, adipose tissue engineering could offer a promising alternative. We have previously shown that methacrylamide-functionalized gelatin scaffolds are suitable to support the adhesion of adipose tissue-derived stem cells as well as their subsequent differentiation into the adipogenic lineage. The current paper aims to compare different techniques to produce such scaffolds including direct versus indirect 3D printing. Extrusion-based (direct) 3D printing was compared to indirect 3D printing exploiting a polylactic acid (PLA) sacrificial mould, thereby focussing on the physico-chemical characteristics of the obtained scaffolds. The results indicate that similar properties can be achieved irrespective of the technique applied. It can therefore be concluded that indirect 3D printing could offer some benefits over direct additive manufacturing (AM) as a more complex design can be created while materials that were previously unsuited for direct printing because of limitations associated with their characteristics (e.g. low viscosity), could potentially be applied as starting materials for indirect 3D printing to generate porous constructs with full control over their design.

Keywords

3D printingbiomaterial
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 5 , Issue 17: Soft Materials and Biomaterials , 2020 , pp. 855 - 864
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

Bray, F., Ferlay, Jacques, Soerjomataram, Isabelle, Siegel, R. L.;, Torre, L. A.;, and Jemal, A., “Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., 2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassan El-Sabbagh, A., “Modern trends in lipomodelling,” GMS Interdiscip. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. DGPW, vol. 6, no. April, 1998.Google Scholar
Roostaeian, J., Pavone, L., Da Lio, A., Lipa, J., Festekjian, J., and Crisera, C., “Immediate placement of implants in breast reconstruction: Patient selection and outcomes,” Plast. Reconstr. Surg., vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 1407–1416, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaezi, M., Zhong, G., Kalami, H., and Yang, S., “Extrusion-based 3D printing technologies for 3D scaffold engineering,” Mater. Technol. Appl., pp. 235–254, 2018.Google Scholar
Young, D. A. and Christman, K. L., “Injectable biomaterials for adipose tissue engineering,” Biomed. Mater., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruoslahti, E., “Rgd and Other Recognition Sequences for Integrins,” Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 697–715, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, T., Embree, H. D., Wu, L. Q., and Payne, G. F., “In vitro protein-polysaccharide conjugation: Tyrosinase-catalyzed conjugation of gelatin and chitosan,” Biopolymers, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 292–302, 2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billiet, T., Gevaert, E., De Schryver, T., Cornelissen, M., and Dubruel, P., “The 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden tissue-engineered constructs with high cell viability,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tytgat, L.et al., “Additive manufacturing of photo-crosslinked gelatin scaffolds for adipose tissue engineering,” Acta Biomater., 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, L. and Woodhouse, K. A., “Adipose tissue engineering with cells in engineered matrices,” Organogenesis, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 228–235, 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peltola, S., Melchels, F., Grijpma, D., and Kellomäki, M., “A review of rapid prototyping techniques for tissue engineering purposes.,” Ann Med, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 268–80, 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, C. Z., Sachlos, E., Wahl, D. A., Han, Z. W., and Czernuszka, J. T., “On the manufacturability of scaffold mould using a 3D printing technology,” Rapid Prototyp. J., 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumpler, M., Woesz, A., Dunlop, J. W. C., Van Dongen, J. T., and Fratzl, P., “The effect of geometry on three-dimensional tissue growth,” J. R. Soc. Interface, 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Hoorick, J.et al., “(Photo-)crosslinkable gelatin derivatives for biofabrication applications,” Acta Biomater., 2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Maria, C., De Acutis, A., and Vozzi, G., “Indirect rapid prototyping for tissue engineering,” in Essentials of 3D Biofabrication and Translation, 2015.Google Scholar
Van Hoorick, J.et al., “Indirect additive manufacturing as an elegant tool for the production of self-supporting low density gelatin scaffolds,” J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med., 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Den Bulcke, A. I., Bogdanov, B., De Rooze, N., Schacht, E. H., Cornelissen, M., and Berghmans, H., “Structural and rheological properties of methacrylamide modified gelatin hydrogels,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–38, 2000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoo, D., “New paradigms in hierarchical porous scaffold design for tissue engineering,” Mater. Sci. Eng. C, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1759–1772, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ansari, S.et al., “Hydrogel elasticity and microarchitecture regulate dental-derived mesenchymal stem cell-host immune system cross-talk,” Acta Biomater ., vol. 60, pp. 181–189, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shih, H., Greene, T., Korc, M., Lin, C., Lafayette, W., and Simon, B., “Modular and adaptable tumor niche prepared from visible light-initiated thiol-norbornene photopolymerization,” vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 3872–3882, 2017.Google Scholar
Negrini, N. C., Tarsini, P., Tanzi, M. C., and Farè, S., “Chemically crosslinked gelatin hydrogels as scaffolding materials for adipose tissue engineering,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 47104, pp. 1–12, 2019.Google Scholar
Huri, P. Y., Ozilgen, B. A., Hutton, D. L., and Grayson, W. L., “Scaffold pore size modulates in vitro osteogenesis of human adipose-derived stem/stromal cells,” Biomed. Mater., vol. 9, no. 4, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tytgat, L.et al., “Evaluation of 3D printed gelatin-based scaffolds with varying pore size for MSC-based adipose tissue engineering,” Macromol. Biosci., 2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, S.et al., “3D Printing of Highly Stretchable and Tough Hydrogels into Complex, Cellularized Structures,” Adv. Mater., 2015.Google ScholarPubMed
Odent, J., Wallin, T. J., Pan, W., Kruemplestaedter, K., Shepherd, R. F., and Giannelis, E. P., “Highly Elastic, Transparent, and Conductive 3D-Printed Ionic Composite Hydrogels,” Adv. Funct. Mater., 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölzl, K., Lin, S., Tytgat, L., Van Vilerberghe, S., Gu, L., and Ovsianikov, A., “Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting,” Biofabrication, vol. 8, pp. 1–19, 2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Do, A., Khorsand, B., Geary, S. M., and Salem, A. K., “3D Printing of Scaffolds for Tissue Regeneration Applications,” Adv Heal. Mater, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1742–1762, 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichol, J. W. and Khademhosseini, A., “Modular tissue engineering: Engineering biological tissues from the bottom up,” Soft Matters, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1312–1319, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutz, A. L., Hyland, K. E., Jakus, A. E., Burghardt, W. R., and Shah, R. N., “A multimaterial bioink method for 3D printing tunable, cell-compatible hydrogels,” Adv. Mater., vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1607–1614, 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urciuolo, F., Imparato, G., Totaro, A., and Netti, P. A., “Building a tissue in vitro from the bottom up: Implications in regenerative medicine.,” Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc. J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 213–217, 2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiruvannamalai-Annamalai, R., Armant, D. R., and Matthew, H. W. T., “A glycosaminoglycan based, modular tissue scaffold system for rapid assembly of perfusable, high cell density, engineered tissues,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goyanes, A., Kobayashi, M., Martínez-Pacheco, R., Gaisford, S., and Basit, A. W., “Fused-filament 3D printing of drug products: Microstructure analysis and drug release characteristics of PVA-based caplets,” Int. J. Pharm., 2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed