Successful employment of 3D printing for delivery of therapeutic biomolecules requires protection of their bioactivity on exposure to potentially inactivating conditions. Although intermediary encapsulation of the biomolecules in polymeric particulate delivery vehicles is a promising strategy for this objective, the inclusion of such particles in 3D printing formulations may critically impact the accuracy or precision of 3D printed scaffolds relative to their intended designed architectures, as well as the degradation behavior of both the scaffolds and the included particles. The present work aimed to elucidate the effect of poly(d,l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) particle size and loading concentration on material accuracy, machine precision, and degradation of 3D printed poly(ɛ-caprolactone)-based scaffolds. Using a main effects analysis, the sizes and loading concentrations of particle delivery vehicles investigated were found to have neither a beneficial nor disadvantageous influence on the metrics of printing quality such as material accuracy and machine precision. Meanwhile, particle loading concentration was determined to influence degradation rate, whereas printing temperature affected the trends in composite weight-average molecular weight. Neither of the two particle-related parameters (concentration nor diameter) was found to exhibit a significant effect on intra-fiber nor inter-fiber porosity. These findings evidence the capacity for controlled loading of particulate delivery vehicles in 3D printed scaffolds while preserving construct accuracy and precision, and with predictable dictation of composite degradation behavior for potential controlled release of encapsulated biomolecules.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KoonsGL, MikosAG. Progress in three-dimensional printing with growth factors. J Control Release, 2019; 295:50–59; doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.12.035
2.
KamalyN, YameenB, WuJ, et al.Degradable controlled-release polymers and polymeric nanoparticles: Mechanisms of controlling drug release. Chem Rev, 2016; 116(4):2602–2663; doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00346
3.
PagelsRF, Prud'hommeRK. Polymeric nanoparticles and microparticles for the delivery of peptides, biologics, and soluble therapeutics. J Control Release, 2015; 219:519–535; doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.09.001
4.
ZhangL, YangG, JohnsonBN, et al.Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair. Acta Biomater, 2019; 84:16–33; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.039
5.
ChewSA, ArriagaMA, HinojosaVA. Effects of surface area to volume ratio of PLGA scaffolds with different architectures on scaffold degradation characteristics and drug release kinetics. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2016; 104(5):1202–1211; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35657
6.
WalejewskaE, IdaszekJ, HeljakM, et al.The effect of introduction of filament shift on degradation behaviour of PLGA- and PLCL-based scaffolds fabricated via additive manufacturing. Polym Degrad Stab, 2020; 171:109030; doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.109030
7.
AragónJ, SalernoS, De BartoloL, et al.Polymeric electrospun scaffolds for bone morphogenetic protein 2 delivery in bone tissue engineering. J Colloid Interface Sci, 2018; 531:126–137; doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.07.029
8.
DikovaTD, DzhendovDA, IvanovI, et al.Dimensional accuracy and surface roughness of polymeric dental bridges produced by different 3D printing processes. Arch Mater Sci Eng, 2018; 94(2):65–75; doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0012.8660
9.
TurekP, BudzikG, Przeszłowski Ł. Assessing the radiological density and accuracy of mandible polymer anatomical structures manufactured using 3D printing technologies. Polymers, 2020; 12(11):2444; doi: 10.3390/polym12112444
10.
Piedra-CascónW, KrishnamurthyVR, AttW, et al.3D printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing procedures of vat-polymerization additive manufacturing technologies: A narrative review. J Dent, 2021; 109:103630; doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103630
11.
DorweilerB, BaquéPE, ChabanR, et al.Quality control in 3D printing: Accuracy analysis of 3D-printed models of patient-specific anatomy. Materials, 2021; 14(4):1021; doi: 10.3390/ma14041021
12.
SeyednejadH, GawlittaD, KuiperRV, et al.In vivo biocompatibility and biodegradation of 3D-printed porous scaffolds based on a hydroxyl-functionalized poly(ɛ-caprolactone). Biomaterials, 2012; 33(17):4309–4318; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.002
13.
ZhangW, UllahI, ShiL, et al.Fabrication and characterization of porous polycaprolactone scaffold via extrusion-based cryogenic 3D printing for tissue engineering. Mater Des, 2019; 180:107946; doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107946
14.
LiuC-G, ZengY-T, KankalaRK, et al.Characterization and preliminary biological evaluation of 3D-printed porous scaffolds for engineering bone tissues. Materials, 2018; 11(10):1832; doi: 10.3390/ma11101832
15.
BoseS, VahabzadehS, BandyopadhyayA. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Mater Today, 2013; 16(12):496–504; doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017
16.
TrachtenbergJE, PlaconeJK, SmithBT, et al.Extrusion-based 3D printing of poly(propylene fumarate) in a full-factorial design. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2016; 2(10):1771–1780; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00026
YaszemskiMJ, PayneRG, HayesWC, et al.The ingrowth of new bone tissue and initial mechanical properties of a degrading polymeric composite scaffold. Tissue Eng, 1995; 1(1):41–52; doi: 10.1089/ten.1995.1.41
19.
KoonsGL, KontoyiannisPD, DibaM, et al.Effect of 3D printing temperature on bioactivity of bone morphogenetic protein-2 released from polymeric constructs. Ann Biomed Eng, 2021; 49(9):2114–2125; doi: 10.1007/s10439-021-02736-9
20.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ [Last accessed: November26, 2021].
21.
Bruker MicroCT. Method Note: 3D Visualization of Open and Closed Porosity. 2012. Bruker Corporation; Billerica, MA, USA.
22.
LiuC, CripeTP, KimM-O. Statistical issues in longitudinal data analysis for treatment efficacy studies in the biomedical sciences. Mol Ther, 2010; 18(9):1724–1730; doi: 10.1038/mt.2010.127
23.
HaslwanterT.An Introduction to Statistics with Python: With Applications in the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing: Switzerland; 2016; p. 196.
24.
LeeJ, WalkerJ, NatarajanS, et al.Prediction of geometric characteristics in polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds produced by extrusion-based additive manufacturing technique for tissue engineering. Rapid Prototyp J, 2020; 26(2):238–248; doi: 10.1108/rpj-08-2018-0219
25.
TolbertJW, HammerstoneDE, YuchimiukN, et al.Solvent-cast 3D printing of biodegradable polymer scaffolds. Macromol Mater Eng, 2021:2100442; doi: 10.1002/mame.202100442
26.
FarzadiA, Solati-HashjinM, Asadi-EydivandM, et al.Effect of layer thickness and printing orientation on mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy of 3D printed porous samples for bone tissue engineering. PLoS One, 2014; 9(9):e108252; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108252
27.
LiuF, VyasC, PoologasundarampillaiG, et al.Structural evolution of PCL during melt extrusion 3D printing. Macrmol Mater Eng, 2018; 303(2):1700494; doi: 10.1002/mame.201700494
28.
WangK, CaiL, HaoF, et al.Distinct cell responses to substrates consisting of poly(ɛ-caprolactone) and poly(propylene fumarate) in the presence or absence of cross-links. Biomacromolecules, 2010; 11(10):2748–2759; doi: 10.1021/bm1008102
HolländerJ, GeninaN, JukarainenH, et al.Three-dimensional printed PCL-based implantable prototypes of medical devices for controlled drug delivery. J Pharm Sci, 2016; 105(9):2665–2676; doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2015.12.012
31.
MaT, LvL, OuyangC, et al.Rheological behavior and particle alignment of cellulose nanocrystal and its composite hydrogels during 3D printing. Carbohydr Polym, 2021; 253:117217; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117217
32.
PuzaF, LienkampK. 3D printing of polymer hydrogels—From basic techniques to programmable actuation. Adv Funct Mater, 2022; 32(39):2205345; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202205345
33.
ZhangH, CongY, OsiAR, et al.Direct 3D printed biomimetic scaffolds based on hydrogel microparticles for cell spheroid growth. Adv Funct Mater, 2020; 30(13):1910573; doi: 10.1002/adfm.201910573
34.
DingS, SerraCA, VandammeTF, et al.Double emulsions prepared by two–step emulsification: History, state-of-the-art and perspective. J Control Release, 2019; 295:31–49; doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.12.037
35.
Baena-AristizábalCM, FessiH, ElaissariA, et al.Biodegradable microparticles preparation by double emulsification—Solvent extraction method: A systematic study. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp, 2016; 492:213–229; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2015.11.067
36.
AboelelaSS, IbrahimM, BadruddozaAZM, et al.Encapsulation of a highly hydrophilic drug in polymeric particles: A comparative study of batch and microfluidic processes. Int J Pharm, 2021; 606:120906; doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120906
37.
BhujelR, MaharjanR, KimNA, et al.Practical quality attributes of polymeric microparticles with current understanding and future perspectives. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol, 2021; 64:102608; doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2021.102608
38.
Martín-SabrosoC, Fraguas-SánchezAI, Aparicio-BlancoJ, et al.Critical attributes of formulation and of elaboration process of PLGA-protein microparticles. Int J Pharm, 2015; 480(1):27–36; doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.01.008
39.
SawkinsMJ, MistryP, BrownBN, et al.Cell and protein compatible 3D bioprinting of mechanically strong constructs for bone repair. Biofabrication, 2015; 7(3):035004; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/7/3/035004
40.
JakusAE, KoubeKD, GeisendorferNR, et al.Robust and elastic lunar and martian structures from 3D-printed regolith inks. Sci Rep, 2017; 7(1):44931; doi: 10.1038/srep44931
41.
XuW, JambhulkarS, RavichandranD, et al.3D printing-enabled nanoparticle alignment: A review of mechanisms and applications. Small, 2021; 17 (45):e2100817; doi: 10.1002/smll.202100817
42.
GarnerJ, SkidmoreS, ParkH, et al.Beyond Q1/Q2: The impact of manufacturing conditions and test methods on drug release from PLGA-based microparticle depot formulations. J Pharm Sci, 2018; 107(1):353–361; doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2017.10.027
43.
AnkrumJA, MirandaOR, NgKS, et al.Engineering cells with intracellular agent–loaded microparticles to control cell phenotype. Nat Protoc, 2014; 9(2):233–245; doi: 10.1038/nprot.2014.002
44.
Ford VersyptAN, PackDW, BraatzRD. Mathematical modeling of drug delivery from autocatalytically degradable PLGA microspheres—A review. J Control Release, 2013; 165(1):29–37; doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.10.015
45.
CelinaMC.Review of polymer oxidation and its relationship with materials performance and lifetime prediction. Polym Degrad Stab, 2013; 98(12):2419–2429; doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.06.024
46.
FrançaDC, MoraisDD, BezerraEB, et al.Photodegradation mechanisms on poly(ɛ-caprolactone) (PCL). Mater Res, 2018; 21(5):e20170837; doi: 10.1590/1980-5373-MR-2017-0837
47.
OdeliusK, HöglundA, KumarS, et al.Porosity and pore size regulate the degradation product profile of polylactide. Biomacromolecules, 2011; 12(4):1250–1258; doi: 10.1021/bm1015464
48.
ZhouX, CaiQ, YanN, et al.In vitro hydrolytic and enzymatic degradation of nestlike-patterned electrospun poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2010; 95A(3):755–765; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32896
49.
EngineerC, ParikhJK, RavalA. Review on hydrolytic degradation behavior of biodegradable polymers from controlled drug delivery system. Trends Biomater Artif Organs, 2011; 25(2):79–85.
50.
DunsingV, IrmscherT, BarbirzS, et al.Purely polysaccharide-based biofilm matrix provides size-selective diffusion barriers for nanoparticles and bacteriophages. Biomacromolecules, 2019; 20(10):3842–3854; doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.9b00938
51.
TessemaA, ZhaoD, MollJ, et al.Effect of filler loading, geometry, dispersion and temperature on thermal conductivity of polymer nanocomposites. Polym Test, 2017; 57:101–106; doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.11.015
52.
KratochvílaJ, BoudenneA, KrupaI. Effect of filler size on thermophysical and electrical behavior of nanocomposites based on expanded graphite nanoparticles filled in low-density polyethylene matrix. Polym Compos, 2013; 34(2):149–155; doi: 10.1002/pc.22387
53.
ChapelleE, GarnierB, BourougaB. Interfacial thermal resistance measurement between metallic wire and polymer in polymer matrix composites. Int J Therm Sci, 2009; 48(12):2221–2227; doi: j.ijthermalsci.2009.05.001
54.
RoweMD, EyilerE, WaltersKB. Hydrolytic degradation of bio-based polyesters: Effect of pH and time. Polym Test, 2016; 52:192–199; doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.04.015
55.
LiuF, VyasC, PoologasundarampillaiG, et al.Process-driven microstructure control in melt-extrusion-based 3D printing for tailorable mechanical properties in a polycaprolactone filament. Macromol Mater Eng, 2018; 303(8):1800173; doi: 10.1002/mame.201800173
56.
ZhangX, WangJ, LiuT. 3D printing of polycaprolactone-based composites with diversely tunable mechanical gradients via multi-material fused deposition modeling. Compos Commun, 2021; 23:100600; doi: 10.1016/j.coco.2020.100600
57.
Boudaghi-KhajehnobarM, EdwardsBJ, KhomamiB. Effects of chain length and polydispersity on shear banding in simple shear flow of polymeric melts. Soft Matter, 2020; 16(28):6468–6483; doi: 10.1039/D0SM00669F
58.
DíazE, SandonisI, ValleMB. In vitro degradation of poly(caprolactone)/nHA composites. J Nanomater, 2014; 2014:802435; doi: 10.1155/2014/802435
59.
MaQ, ShiK, SuT, et al.Biodegradation of polycaprolactone (PCL) with different molecular weights by Candida antarctica lipase. J Polym Environ, 2020; 28(11):2947–2955; doi: 10.1007/s10924-020-01826-4
60.
SajkiewiczP, HeljakMK, GradysA, et al.Degradation and related changes in supermolecular structure of poly(caprolactone) in vivo conditions. Polym Degrad Stab, 2018; 157:70–79; doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2018.09.023
61.
XuY, KimC-S, SaylorDM, et al.Polymer degradation and drug delivery in PLGA-based drug–polymer applications: A review of experiments and theories. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017; 105(6):1692–1716; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33648
62.
LiuH, ZhuY-L, ZhangJ, et al.Influence of grafting surface curvature on chain polydispersity and molecular weight in concave surface-initiated polymerization. ACS Macro Lett, 2012; 1(11):1249–1253; doi: 10.1021/mz3003374
63.
JainS, FuocoT, YassinMA, et al.Printability and critical insight into polymer properties during direct-extrusion based 3D printing of medical grade polylactide and copolyesters. Biomacromolecules, 2020; 21(2):388–396; doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.9b01112
64.
WischkeC, LendleinA. Functional nanocarriers by miniaturization of polymeric materials. Nanomedicine, 2016; 11(12):1507–1509; doi: 10.2217/nnm.16.45
65.
BartnikowskiM, DargavilleTR, IvanovskiS, et al.Degradation mechanisms of polycaprolactone in the context of chemistry, geometry and environment. Prog Polym Sci, 2019; 96:1–20; doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.05.004
66.
WoodardLN, GrunlanMA. Hydrolytic degradation and erosion of polyester biomaterials. ACS Macro Lett, 2018; 7(8):976–982; doi: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.8b00424
67.
IdaszekJ, BruininkA, ŚwięszkowskiW. Delayed degradation of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) accelerates hydrolysis of poly(ɛ-caprolactone) in ternary composite scaffolds. Polym Degrad Stab, 2016; 124:119–127; doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2015.12.020
68.
CornelsenM, PetersenS, DietschK, et al.Infiltration of 3D printed tricalciumphosphate scaffolds with biodegradable polymers and biomolecules for local drug delivery. Biomed Tech, 2013; 58(Suppl 1); doi: 10.1515/bmt-2013-4090
69.
RezwanK, ChenQZ, BlakerJJ, et al.Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2006; 27(18):3413–3431; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.039
70.
GleadallA, PanJ, KruftM-A, et al.Degradation mechanisms of bioresorbable polyesters. Part 1. Effects of random scission, end scission and autocatalysis. Acta Biomater, 2014; 10(5):2223–2232; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.039
71.
MartinsC, SousaF, AraújoF, et al.Functionalizing PLGA and PLGA derivatives for drug delivery and tissue regeneration applications. Adv Healthc Mater, 2018; 7(1):1701035; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201701035
72.
BranniganRP, DoveAP. Synthesis, properties and biomedical applications of hydrolytically degradable materials based on aliphatic polyesters and polycarbonates. Biomater Sci, 2017; 5(1):9–21; doi: 10.1039/c6bm00584e
73.
ZhangQ, JiangY, ZhangY, et al.Effect of porosity on long-term degradation of poly (ɛ-caprolactone) scaffolds and their cellular response. Polym Degrad Stab, 2013; 98(1):209–218; doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.10.008
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.
