One of the main challenges of the interface-tissue engineering is the regeneration of diseased or damaged interfacial native tissues that are heterogeneous both in composition and in structure. In order to achieve this objective, innovative fabrication techniques have to be investigated. This work describes the design, fabrication, and validation of a novel mixing system to be integrated into a double-extruder bioprinter, based on an ultrasonic probe included into a mixing chamber. To validate the quality and the influence of mixing time, different nanohydroxyapatite–gelatin samples were printed. Mechanical characterization, micro-computed tomography, and thermogravimetric analysis were carried out. Samples obtained from three-dimensional bioprinting using the mixing chamber were compared to samples obtained by deposition of the same final solution obtained by manually operated ultrasound probe, showing no statistical differences. Results obtained from samples characterization allow to consider the proposed mixing system as a promising tool for the fabrication of graduated structures which are increasingly being used in interface-tissue engineering.
SeidiARamalingamMElloumi-HannachiI, et al. Gradient biomaterials for soft-to-hard interface tissue engineering. Acta Biomater2011; 7(4): 1441–1451.
2.
CriscentiGLongoniADi LucaA, et al. Triphasic scaffolds for the regeneration of the bone–ligament interface. Biofabrication2016; 8(1): 015009.
3.
CriscentiGDe MariaCLongoniA, et al. Soft-molecular imprinted electrospun scaffolds to mimic specific biological tissues. Biofabrication2018; 10(4): 045005.
4.
PatelSCaldwellJMDotySB, et al. Integrating soft and hard tissues via interface tissue engineering. J Orthop Res2018; 36(4): 1069–1077.
5.
ZhangYSXiaY.Multiple facets for extracellular matrix mimicking in regenerative medicine. Nanomedicine2015; 10(5): 689–692.
6.
DeluzioTGBSeifuDGMequanintK.3D scaffolds in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: beyond structural templates?Pharm Bioprocess2013; 1(3): 267–281.
7.
ChanBPLeongKW.Scaffolding in tissue engineering: general approaches and tissue-specific considerations. Eur Spine J2008; 17(Suppl. 4): 467–479.
8.
MikosAGHerringSWOchareonP, et al. Engineering complex tissues. Tissue Eng2006; 12(12): 3307–3339.
9.
BracagliaLGSmithBTWatsonE, et al. 3D printing for the design and fabrication of polymer-based gradient scaffolds. Acta Biomater2017; 56: 3–13.
10.
DengYJordanK (eds). Functional 3D tissue engineering scaffolds: materials, technologies, and applications. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing, 2017.
11.
GrollJBolandTBlunkT, et al. Biofabrication: reappraising the definition of an evolving field. Biofabrication2016; 8(1): 013001.
12.
MoroniLBolandTBurdickJA, et al. Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology. Trends Biotechnol2018; 36(4): 384–402.
13.
HutmacherDW.Scaffold design and fabrication technologies for engineering tissues—state of the art and future perspectives. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2001; 12(1): 107–124.
14.
MonzónMLiuCAjamiS, et al. Functionally graded additive manufacturing to achieve functionality specifications of osteochondral scaffolds. Biodes Manuf2018; 1(1): 69–75.
15.
WoodfieldTBMaldaJde WijnJ, et al. Design of porous scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering using a three-dimensional fiber-deposition technique. Biomaterials2004; 25(18): 4149–4161.
16.
SobralJMCaridadeSGSousaRA, et al. Three-dimensional plotted scaffolds with controlled pore size gradients: effect of scaffold geometry on mechanical performance and cell seeding efficiency. Acta Biomater2011; 7(3): 1009–1018.
17.
De MariaCVozziGMoroniL. Multimaterial, heterogeneous, and multicellular three-dimensional bioprinting. Mrs Bull2017; 42(8): 578–584.
18.
MaldaJVisserJMelchelsFP, et al. 25th anniversary article: engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater2013; 25(36): 5011–5028.
SnyderJSonARHamidQ, et al. Hetero-cellular prototyping by synchronized multi-material bioprinting for rotary cell culture system. Biofabrication2015; 8(1): 015002.
21.
CaprettoL, et al. Micromixing within microfluidic devices. In: LinB (ed.) Microfluidics. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, pp. 27–68.
22.
Chiu FerreiraJLuoTJGengH, et al. Direct scaffolding of biomimetic hydroxyapatite-gelatin nanocomposites using aminosilane cross-linker for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci Mater Med2012; 23(9): 2115–2126.
23.
AzamiMTavakolSSamadikuchaksaraeiA, et al. A porous hydroxyapatite/gelatin nanocomposite scaffold for bone tissue repair: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2012; 23(18): 2353–2368.
24.
VozziGCoralloCCartaS, et al. Collagen-gelatin-genipin-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds colonized by human primary osteoblasts are suitable for bone tissue engineering applications: in vitro evidences. J Biomed Mater Res A2014; 102(5): 1415–1421.
25.
JelenCMatteiGMontemurroF, et al. Bone scaffolds with homogeneous and discrete gradient mechanical properties. Mater Sci Eng C: Mater Biol Appl2013; 33(1): 28–36.
26.
MontemurroFDe MariaCOrsiG, et al. Genipin diffusion and reaction into a gelatin matrix for tissue engineering applications. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater2017; 105(3): 473–480.
GentilePMattioli-BelmonteMChionoV, et al. Bioactive glass/polymer composite scaffolds mimicking bone tissue. J Biomed Mater Res A2012; 100(10): 2654–2667.
31.
SeetonCJ. Viscosity-temperature correlation for liquids. In: STLE/ASME international joint tribology conference, San Antonio, TX, 23–25 October 2006. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
32.
PaxtonNSmolanWBockT, et al. Proposal to assess printability of bioinks for extrusion-based bioprinting and evaluation of rheological properties governing bioprintability. Biofabrication2017; 9(4): 044107.
33.
YunokiSOhyabuYHatayamaH.Temperature-responsive gelation of type I collagen solutions involving fibril formation and genipin crosslinking as a potential injectable hydrogel. Int J Biomater2013; 2013: 620765.
34.
NickersonMTPatelJHeydDV, et al. Kinetic and mechanistic considerations in the gelation of genipin-crosslinked gelatin. Int J Biol Macromol2006; 39(4–5): 298–302.
35.
O’BryanCSBhattacharjeeTNiemiS, et al. Three-dimensional printing with sacrificial materials for soft matter manufacturing. Mrs Bull2017; 42(8): 571–577.
