Inverse 3D Printing with Variations of the Strand Width of the Resulting Scaffolds for Bone Replacement.
FDM
bone replacement
compressive strength
inversely
β-TCP
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Apr 2021
14 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
18
02
2021
revised:
01
04
2021
accepted:
07
04
2021
entrez:
30
4
2021
pubmed:
1
5
2021
medline:
1
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to vary the wall thicknesses and pore sizes of inversely printed 3D molded bodies. Wall thicknesses were varied from 1500 to 2000 to 2500 µm. The pores had sizes of 500, 750 and 1000 µm. The sacrificial structures were fabricated from polylactide (PLA) using fused deposition modeling (FDM). To obtain the final bioceramic scaffolds, a water-based slurry was filled into the PLA molds. The PLA sacrificial molds were burned out at approximately 450 °C for 4 h. Subsequently, the samples were sintered at 1250 °C for at least 4 h. The scaffolds were mechanically characterized (native and after incubation in simulated body fluid (SBF) for 28 days). In addition, the biocompatibility was assessed by live/dead staining. The scaffolds with a strand spacing of 500 µm showed the highest compressive strength; there was no significant difference in compressive strength regardless of pore size. The specimens with 1000 µm pore size showed a significant dependence on strand width. Thus, the specimens (1000 µm pores) with 2500 µm wall thickness showed the highest compressive strength of 5.97 + 0.89 MPa. While the 1000(1500) showed a value of 2.90 + 0.67 MPa and the 1000(2000) of 3.49 + 1.16 MPa. As expected for beta-Tricalciumphosphate (β-TCP), very good biocompatibility was observed with increasing cell numbers over the experimental period.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33919880
pii: ma14081964
doi: 10.3390/ma14081964
pmc: PMC8070765
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Macromol Biosci. 2004 Aug 9;4(8):743-65
pubmed: 15468269
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2017 Dec 28;29(1):12
pubmed: 29285633
Eur J Oral Sci. 2019 Apr;127(2):179-186
pubmed: 30648767
Bone. 2005 Jan;36(1):52-60
pubmed: 15664002
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019 Feb;107(2):377-387
pubmed: 29656513
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008 Sep;19(9):3063-70
pubmed: 18392667
Biomaterials. 2005 Nov;26(33):6713-9
pubmed: 15950278
J Vis Exp. 2019 Mar 14;(145):
pubmed: 30933056
Materials (Basel). 2019 Oct 18;12(20):
pubmed: 31635363
Acta Biomater. 2016 Oct 15;44:125-34
pubmed: 27523030
Acta Biomater. 2012 Apr;8(4):1401-21
pubmed: 22127225
J Invest Surg. 1999 Sep-Oct;12(5):263-75
pubmed: 10599002
Ann Biomed Eng. 2017 Jan;45(1):23-44
pubmed: 27324800
BMC Biotechnol. 2016 May 20;16(1):44
pubmed: 27206764
J Mater Chem B. 2018 Jul 21;6(27):4397-4412
pubmed: 32254656
Morphologie. 2017 Sep;101(334):164-172
pubmed: 28462796
Knee. 2007 Jun;14(3):239-44
pubmed: 17376691
ANZ J Surg. 2001 Jun;71(6):354-61
pubmed: 11409021
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Apr 1;61:180-9
pubmed: 26838839
Materials (Basel). 2017 Dec 22;11(1):
pubmed: 29271932
Acta Biomater. 2017 Mar 15;51:433-446
pubmed: 28104468
Trends Biotechnol. 2012 Oct;30(10):546-54
pubmed: 22939815
Acta Biomater. 2013 Dec;9(12):9558-67
pubmed: 23954526
Injury. 2000 Dec;31 Suppl 4:37-47
pubmed: 11270080
J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2013 Apr;4(2):78-83
pubmed: 23833747
J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2016 Oct;10(10):E337-E353
pubmed: 23955935
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Dec;87(12):1631-5
pubmed: 16326875