Critical-sized mandibular bone defects, arising from, for example, resections after tumor surgeries, are currently treated with autogenous bone grafts. This treatment is considered very invasive and is associated with limitations such as morbidity and graft resorption. Tissue engineering approaches propose to use 3D scaffolds that combine structural features, biomaterial properties, cells, and biomolecules to create biomimetic constructs. However, mimicking the complex anatomy and composition of the mandible poses a challenge in scaffold design. In our study, we evaluated the dual effect of complex pore geometry and material composition on the osteogenic potential of 3D printed scaffolds. The scaffolds were made of polycaprolactone (PCL) alone (TCP0), or with a high concentration of β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) up to 40% w/w (TCP40), with two complex pore geometries, namely a star- (S) and a diamond-like (D) shape. Scanning electron microscopy and microcomputed tomography images confirmed high fidelity during the printing process. The D-scaffolds displayed higher compressive moduli than the corresponding S-scaffolds. TCP40 scaffolds in simulated body fluid showed deposition of minerals on the surface after 28 days. Subsequently, we assessed the differentiation of seeded bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stromal cells (hMSCs) over 28 days. The early expression of RUNX2 in the cell nuclei confirmed the commitment toward an osteogenic phenotype. Moreover, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and collagen deposition displayed an increasing trend in the D-scaffolds. Collagen type I was mainly present in the deposited extracellular matrix (ECM), confirming deposition of bone matrix. Finally, Alizarin Red staining showed successful mineralization on all the TCP40 samples, with higher values for the S-shaped scaffolds. Taken together, our study demonstrated that the complex pore architectures of scaffolds comprised TCP40 stimulated osteogenic differentiation and mineralization of hMSCs in vitro. Future research will aim to validate these findings in vivo.
Impact Statement
In this study, we report the fabrication of composite scaffolds with advanced pore geometries to promote osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells. We showcase how 3D constructs having two complex biomimetic pore shapes can induce higher expression of bone-related markers. Our approach provides a novel scaffold-based solution to tackle mandibular critical-sized bone defects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DimitriouR, JonesE, McGonagleD, GiannoudisPV. Bone regeneration: Current concepts and future directions. BMC Med, 2011; 9:66; doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-66
2.
MaY, ZhangC, WangY, et al.Direct three-dimensional printing of a highly customized freestanding hyperelastic bioscaffold for complex craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2021; 411:128541; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.128541
3.
NeliganPC. Head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2013; 131(2):260e–269e; doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182778938
ZhangQ, WuW, QianC, et al.Advanced biomaterials for repairing and reconstruction of mandibular defects. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 103:109858; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109858
6.
HagioM, IshizakiK, RyuM, et al.Maxillofacial prosthetic treatment factors affecting oral health-related quality of life after surgery for patients with oral cancer. J Prosthet Dent, 2018; 119(4):663–670; doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.017
7.
DalfinoS, SavadoriP, PiazzoniM, et al.Regeneration of critical-sized mandibular defects using 3D-printed composite scaffolds: A quantitative evaluation of new bone formation in vivo studies. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(21):e2300128; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202300128
8.
WinderJ, BibbR. Medical rapid prototyping technologies: State of the art and current limitations for application in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2005; 63(7):1006–1015; doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.03.016
9.
PlaconeJK, EnglerAJ. Recent advances in extrusion-based 3D printing for biomedical applications. Adv Healthc Mater, 2018; 7(8):e1701161; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201701161
10.
DoAV, KhorsandB, GearySM, SalemAK. 3D printing of scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. Adv Healthc Mater, 2015; 4(12):1742–1762; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201500168
11.
RezwanK, ChenQZ, BlakerJJ, BoccacciniAR. 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
12.
TempleJP, HuttonDL, HungBP, et al.Engineering anatomically shaped vascularized bone grafts with hASCs and 3D-printed PCL scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2014; 102(12):4317–4325; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35107
13.
OstrowskaB, Di LucaA, SzlazakK, MoroniL, SwieszkowskiW. Influence of internal pore architecture on biological and mechanical properties of three-dimensional fiber deposited scaffolds for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2016; 104(4):991–1001; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35637
14.
ZamaniY, AmoabedinyG, MohammadiJ, et al.3D-printed poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffold with gradient mechanical properties according to force distribution in the mandible for mandibular bone tissue engineering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2020; 104:103638; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103638
15.
NaikC, SrinathN, RanganathMK, et al.Evaluation of polycaprolactone scaffold for guided bone regeneration in maxillary and mandibular defects: A clinical study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg, 2020; 11(2):207–212; doi: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_35_20
16.
GharibshahianM, SalehiM, BeheshtizadehN, et al.Recent advances on 3D-printed PCL-based composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2023; 11:1168504; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1168504
17.
HabibovicP, GbureckU, DoillonCJ, et al.Osteoconduction and osteoinduction of low-temperature 3D printed bioceramic implants. Biomaterials, 2008; 29(7):944–953; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.10.023
18.
SmithBT, BittnerSM, WatsonE, et al.Multimaterial dual gradient three-dimensional printing for osteogenic differentiation and spatial segregation. Tissue Eng Part A, 2019; 26(5-6):239–252; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2019.0204
Morales-HernandezDG, GenetosDC, WorkingDM, et al.Ceramic identity contributes to mechanical properties and osteoblast behavior on macroporous composite scaffolds. J Funct Biomater, 2012; 3(2):382–397.
21.
ChenS, ShiY, ZhangX, MaJ. 3D printed hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds with enhanced mechanical properties. Ceramics International, 2019; 45(8):10991–10996; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.02.182
22.
KhojastehA, BehniaH, HosseiniFS, et al.The effect of PCL-TCP scaffold loaded with mesenchymal stem cells on vertical bone augmentation in dog mandible: A preliminary report. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2013; 101(5):848–854; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.32889
23.
BruyasA, LouF, StahlAM, et al.Systematic characterization of 3D-printed PCL/β-TCP scaffolds for biomedical devices and bone tissue engineering: Influence of composition and porosity. J Mater Res, 2018; 33(14):1948–1959; doi: 10.1557/jmr.2018.112
24.
WangQ, YeW, MaZ, et al.3D printed PCL/β-TCP cross-scale scaffold with high-precision fiber for providing cell growth and forming bones in the pores. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 127:112197; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.112197
25.
ParkSH, ParkSA, KangYG, et al.PCL/β-TCP composite scaffolds exhibit positive osteogenic differentiation with mechanical stimulation. Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2017; 14(4):349–358; doi: 10.1007/s13770-017-0022-9
26.
WernerM, BlanquerSBG, HaimiSP, et al.Surface curvature differentially regulates stem cell migration and differentiation via altered attachment morphology and nuclear deformation. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2017; 4(2):1600347; doi: 10.1002/advs.201600347
27.
Di LucaA, Lorenzo-MolderoI, MotaC, et al.Tuning cell differentiation into a 3D scaffold presenting a pore shape gradient for osteochondral regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2016; 5(14):1753–1763; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201600083
28.
KapferSC, HydeST, MeckeK, et al.Minimal surface scaffold designs for tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(29):6875–6882; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.012
29.
DongZ, ZhaoX. Application of TPMS structure in bone regeneration. Engineered Regeneration, 2021; 2:154–162; doi: 10.1016/j.engreg.2021.09.004
30.
ValainisD, DondlP, FoehrP, et al.Integrated additive design and manufacturing approach for the bioengineering of bone scaffolds for favorable mechanical and biological properties. Biomed Mater, 2019; 14(6):065002; doi: 10.1088/1748-605X/ab38c6
31.
WernerM, KurniawanNA, KorusG, et al.Mesoscale substrate curvature overrules nanoscale contact guidance to direct bone marrow stromal cell migration. J R Soc Interface, 2018; 15(145); doi: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0162
32.
LeeJS, ParkTH, RyuJY, et al.Osteogenesis of 3d-printed PCL_TCP_bdECM scaffold using adipose-derived stem cells aggregates. IJMS, 2021; 22(11):5409; doi: 10.3390/ijms22115409
33.
FengX. Chemical and biochemical basis of cell-bone matrix interaction in health and disease. Curr Chem Biol, 2009; 3(2):189–196; doi: 10.2174/187231309788166398
34.
BlanquerSBG, GrijpmaDW. Triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) for the generation of porous architectures using stereolithography. In: Computer-Aided Tissue Engineering: Methods and Protocols. (RainerA, MoroniL. eds.) Springer. US: New York, NY; 2021; pp. 19-30.
35.
SensiniA, GualandiC, FocareteML, et al.Multiscale hierarchical bioresorbable scaffolds for the regeneration of tendons and ligaments. Biofabrication, 2019; 11(3):035026; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ab20ad
36.
OyaneA, KimHM, FuruyaT, et al.Preparation and assessment of revised simulated body fluids. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2003; 65(2):188–195; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.10482
37.
SchmittgenTD, LivakKJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method. Nat Protoc, 2008; 3(6):1101–1108; doi: 10.1038/nprot.2008.73
38.
TangZ, LiX, TanY, et al.The material and biological characteristics of osteoinductive calcium phosphate ceramics. Regen Biomater, 2018; 5(1):43–59; doi: 10.1093/rb/rbx024
39.
DavisonN, LuoX, SchoenmakerT, et al.Submicron-scale surface architecture of tricalcium phosphate directs osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Eur Cell Mater, 2014; 27(2):281–297.
40.
Galván-ChacónVP, de Melo PereiraD, VermeulenS, et al.Decoupling the role of chemistry and microstructure in hMSCs response to an osteoinductive calcium phosphate ceramic. Bioact Mater, 2023; 19:127–138; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.03.030
41.
DávilaJL, FreitasMS, Inforçatti NetoP, et al.Fabrication of PCL/β-TCP scaffolds by 3D mini-screw extrusion printing. J of Applied Polymer Sci, 2016; 133(15); doi: 10.1002/app.43031
42.
BiancoA, Di FedericoE, CacciottiI. Electrospun poly(ε-caprolactone)-based composites using synthesized β-tricalcium phosphate. Polymers for Advanced Techs, 2011; 22(12):1832–1841; doi: 10.1002/pat.1680
43.
AhmadiAH, NosratiH, Sarraf-MamooryR. Decreasing β-three calcium phosphate particle size using graphite as nucleation sites and diethylene glycol as a chemical additive. Journal of Bioengineering Research, 2019; 9; doi: 10.22034/jbr.2019.211371.1016
44.
Castilla-CortázarI, VidaurreA, MaríB, Campillo-FernándezAJ. Morphology, crystallinity, and molecular weight of poly(ε-caprolactone)/graphene oxide hybrids. Polymers (Basel), 2019; 11(7):1099.
45.
HuangB, CaetanoG, VyasC, et al.Polymer-ceramic composite scaffolds: the effect of hydroxyapatite and β-tri-calcium phosphate. Materials (Basel), 2018; 11(1); doi: 10.3390/ma11010129
46.
MakarovC, GotmanI, RadinS, et al.Vancomycin release from bioresorbable calcium phosphate–polymer composites with high ceramic volume fractions. J Mater Sci, 2010; 45(23):6320–6324; doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4444-1
47.
BohnerM, LemaitreJ. Can bioactivity be tested in vitro with SBF solution? Biomaterials, 2009; 30(12):2175–2179; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.008
48.
RezaniaN, Asadi-EydivandM, AbolfathiN, et al.Three-dimensional printing of polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite bone tissue engineering scaffolds mechanical properties and biological behavior. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2022; 33(3):31; doi: 10.1007/s10856-022-06653-8
49.
HernandezI, KumarA, JoddarB. A bioactive hydrogel and 3D printed polycaprolactone system for bone tissue engineering. Gels, 2017; 3(3):26.
50.
Font TelladoS, DelgadoJA, PohSPP, et al.Phosphorous pentoxide-free bioactive glass exhibits dose-dependent angiogenic and osteogenic capacities which are retained in glass polymeric composite scaffolds. Biomater Sci, 2021; 9(23):7876–7894; doi: 10.1039/d1bm01311d
51.
ParkS, KimJE, HanJ, et al.3D-printed poly (ε-caprolactone)/hydroxyapatite scaffolds modified with alkaline hydrolysis enhance osteogenesis in vitro. Polymers (Basel), 2021; 13(2):257.
52.
Cámara-TorresM, SinhaR, MotaC, MoroniL. Improving cell distribution on 3D additive manufactured scaffolds through engineered seeding media density and viscosity. Acta Biomater, 2020; 101:183–195; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.11.020
53.
BeerenIAO, DijkstraPJ, LourençoAFH, et al.Installation of click-type functional groups enable the creation of an additive manufactured construct for the osteochondral interface. Biofabrication, 2023; 15(1):014106; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/aca3d4
54.
YangY-HK, OgandoCR, Wang SeeC, et al.Changes in phenotype and differentiation potential of human mesenchymal stem cells aging in vitro. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2018; 9(1):131; doi: 10.1186/s13287-018-0876-3
55.
MoioliEK, HongL, MaoJJ. Inhibition of osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Wound Repair Regen, 2007; 15(3):413–421; doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00244.x
56.
SchroederTM, JensenED, WestendorfJJ. Runx2: A master organizer of gene transcription in developing and maturing osteoblasts. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today, 2005; 75(3):213–225; doi: 10.1002/bdrc.20043
57.
LefebvreV, Dvir-GinzbergM. SOX9 and the many facets of its regulation in the chondrocyte lineage. Connect Tissue Res, 2017; 58(1):2–14; doi: 10.1080/03008207.2016.1183667
58.
LoebelC, CzekanskaEM, BrudererM, et al.In vitro osteogenic potential of human mesenchymal stem cells is predicted by Runx2/Sox9 ratio. Tissue Eng Part A, 2015; 21(1-2):115–123; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0096
59.
de Melo PereiraD, Eischen-LogesM, BirganiZT, HabibovicP. Proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs on biomineralized collagen. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:554565; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.554565
60.
GovindarajK, KannanS, KarperienM, PostJN. Mapping RUNX2 transcriptional dynamics during multi-lineage differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. bioRxiv, 2023; 2023; doi: 10.1101/2023.03.30.534618
61.
Camara-TorresM, SinaR, SanchezA, et al.Effect of highly loaded nanohydroxyapatite composite scaffolds prepared via melt extrusion additive manufacturing on the osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells. bioRxiv, 2021; 2021(01.21.427568); doi: 10.1101/2021.01.21.427568
62.
SunL, DanouxCB, WangQ, et al.Independent effects of the chemical and microstructural surface properties of polymer/ceramic composites on proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of human MSCs. Acta Biomater, 2016; 42:364–377; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.018
63.
PuchtlerH, MeloanSN, TerryMS. On the history and mechanism of alizarin and alizarin red s stains for calcium. J Histochem Cytochem, 1969; 17(2):110–124; doi: 10.1177/17.2.110
64.
CaiH, ZouJ, WangW, YangA. BMP2 induces hMSC osteogenesis and matrix remodeling. Mol Med Rep, 2021; 23(2):125; doi: 10.3892/mmr.2020.11764
65.
RosenV. BMP2 signaling in bone development and repair. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, 2009; 20(5-6):475–480; doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2009.10.018
66.
FernandesH, MentinkA, BankR, et al.Endogenous collagen influences differentiation of human multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Tissue Eng Part A, 2009; 16(5):1693–1702; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2009.0341
67.
Sila-AsnaM, BunyaratvejA, MaedaS, et al.Osteoblast differentiation and bone formation gene expression in strontium-inducing bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell. Kobe J Med Sci, 2007; 53(1-2):25–35.
68.
BrudererM, RichardsRG, AliniM, StoddartMJ. Role and regulation of RUNX2 in osteogenesis. Eur Cell Mater, 2014; 28:269–286; doi: 10.22203/ecm.v028a19
69.
LiuTM, LeeEH. Transcriptional regulatory cascades in runx2-dependent bone development. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2012; 19(3):254–263; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0527
70.
LiuW, ToyosawaS, FuruichiT, et al.Overexpression of Cbfa1 in osteoblasts inhibits osteoblast maturation and causes osteopenia with multiple fractures. J Cell Biol, 2001; 155(1):157–166; doi: 10.1083/jcb.200105052
71.
NeveA, CorradoA, CantatoreFP. Osteoblast physiology in normal and pathological conditions. Cell Tissue Res, 2011; 343(2):289–302; doi: 10.1007/s00441-010-1086-1
72.
DeyM, GerhardEM, GodzikKP, et al.3D printing of poly(ε-caprolactone)/poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite composite constructs for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Res, 2018; 33(14):1972–1986; doi: 10.1557/jmr.2018.111
73.
NybergE, RindoneA, DorafsharA, GraysonWL. Comparison of 3D-printed poly-ε-caprolactone scaffolds functionalized with tricalcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, bio-oss, or decellularized bone matrix. Tissue Eng Part A, 2016; 23(11-12):503–514; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0418
74.
NikodyM, LiJ, BalmayorER, et al.The addition of zinc ions to polymer-ceramic composites accelerated osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells. Biomater Adv, 2023; 149:213391; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213391
75.
ChoYS, ChoiS, LeeS-H, et al.Assessments of polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite composite scaffold with enhanced biomimetic mineralization by exposure to hydroxyapatite via a 3D-printing system and alkaline erosion. European Polymer Journal, 2019; 113:340–348; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.02.006
76.
JavkhlanZ, HsuS-H, ChenR-S, ChenM-H. 3D-printed polycaprolactone scaffolds coated with beta tricalcium phosphate for bone regeneration. J Formos Med Assoc, 2023; 123(1):71–77; doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2023.08.009
77.
TanB, ZhaoN, GuoW, et al.Biomimetic hydroxyapatite coating on the 3D-printed bioactive porous composite ceramic scaffolds promoted osteogenic differentiation via PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathways and facilitated bone regeneration in vivo. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 2023; 136:54–64; doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2022.07.016
78.
Van BaelS, ChaiYC, TruscelloS, et al.The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum-derived cells seeded on selective laser-melted Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomater, 2012; 8(7):2824–2834; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.001
79.
BernerA, WoodruffMA, LamCXF, et al.Effects of scaffold architecture on cranial bone healing. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014; 43(4):506–513; doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.05.008
80.
DengF, LiuL, LiZ, LiuJ. 3D printed Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds with different pore structure effects on bone ingrowth. J Biol Eng, 2021; 15(1):4; doi: 10.1186/s13036-021-00255-8
81.
RubertM, VetschJR, LehtoviitaI, et al.Scaffold pore geometry guides gene regulation and bone-like tissue formation in dynamic cultures. Tissue Eng Part A, 2020; 27(17-18):1192–1204; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2020.0121
82.
RaiB, LinJL, LimZXH, et al.Differences between in vitro viability and differentiation and in vivo bone-forming efficacy of human mesenchymal stem cells cultured on PCL–TCP scaffolds. Biomaterials, 2010; 31(31):7960–7970; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.001
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.
