Tissue-engineered bone material is one of the effective methods to repair bone defects, but the application is restricted in clinical because of the lack of excellent scaffolds that can induce bone regeneration as well as the difficulty in making scaffolds with personalized structures. 3D printing is an emerging technology that can fabricate bespoke 3D scaffolds with precise structure. However, it is challenging to develop the scaffold materials with excellent printability, osteogenesis ability, and mechanical strength. In this study, graphene oxide (GO), attapulgite (ATP), type I collagen (Col I) and polyvinyl alcohol were used as raw materials to prepare composite scaffolds via 3D bioprinting. The composite materials showed excellent printability. The microcosmic architecture and properties was characterized by scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared and thermal gravimetric analyzer, respectively. To verify the biocompatibility of the scaffolds, the viability, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of Bone Marrow Stromal Cells (BMSCs) on the scaffolds were assessed by CCK-8, Live/Dead staining and Real-time PCR in vitro. The composited scaffolds were then implanted into the skull defects on rat for bone regeneration. Hematoxylin-eosin staining, Masson staining and immunohistochemistry staining were carried out in vivo to evaluate the regeneration of bone tissue.
The results showed that GO/ATP/COL scaffolds have been demonstrated to possess controlled porosity, water absorption, biodegradability and good apatite-mineralization ability. The scaffold consisting of 0.5% GO/ATP/COL have excellent biocompatibility and was able to promote the growth, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of mouse BMSCs in vitro. Furthermore, the 0.5% GO/ATP/COL scaffolds were also able to promote bone regeneration of in rat skull defects. Our results illustrated that the 3D printed GO/ATP/COL composite scaffolds have good mechanical properties, excellent cytocompatibility for enhanced mouse BMSCs adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation. All these advantages made it potential as a promising biomaterial for osteogenic reconstruction.
BaiRGMuthoosamyKManickamS, et al.Graphene-based 3D scaffolds in tissue engineering: fabrication, applications, and future scope in liver tissue engineering. Int J Nanomedicine2019; 14: 5753–5783.
2.
SomasundaramPSanthoshSRaymondW. Osteogenic potential of graphene in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Materials2018; 11(8): 1430. DOI: 10.3390/ma11081430.
3.
ChengXTWanQB. XiboPei, Graphene family materials in bone tissue regeneration: perspectives and challenges. Nanoscale Res Lett2018; 13(1): 289.
4.
DubeyNBentiniRIslamI, et al.Graphene: a versatile carbon-based material for bone tissue engineering. Stem Cell Int2015; 2015: 804213. DOI: 10.1155/2015/804213.
5.
NadomirGAlanIJohnV, et al.Nanobiotechnology and bone regeneration: a mini-review. Int Orthopaedics2014; 38(9): 1877–1884.
6.
ZhuLSDanLLiuY, et al.Effect of the nano/microscale structure of biomaterial scaffolds on bone regeneration. Int J Oral Ence2020; 12(1): 6.
7.
ShiraziSFGharehkhaniSMehraliM, et al.A review on powder-based additive manufacturing for tissue engineering: selective laser sintering and inkjet 3D printing. Sci Technol Adv Mater2015; 16(3): 033502.
8.
HiteshLKumarPM. 3D printing and its applications in orthopaedic trauma: a technological marvel. J Clin Orthopaedics Trauma2018; 9(3): 260–268.
9.
LangerR. Perspectives and challenges in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Adv Mater2009; 21(32–33): 3235–3236.
10.
DinescuSIonitaMIgnatSR, et al.Graphene oxide enhances chitosan-based 3D scaffold properties for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Ences2019; 20: 5077. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20205077.
11.
FangHMLuoCLiuSK, et al.A biocompatible vascularized graphene oxide (GO)-collagen chamber with osteoinductive and anti-fibrosis effects promotes bone regeneration in vivo. Theranostics2020; 10(6): 2759–2772.
12.
XueDTChenEZhongHM, et al.Immunomodulatory properties of graphene oxide for osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Int J Nanomedicine2018; 13: 5799–5810.
13.
ChoeGOhSSeokJM, et al.Graphene oxide/alginate composites as novel bioinks for three-dimensional mesenchymal stem cell printing and bone regeneration applications. Nanoscale2019; 11(48): 23275–23285.
14.
GulzarAYangPHeF, et al.Bioapplications of graphene constructed functional nanomaterials. Chem Biol Interact2017; 262: 69–89.
15.
ShaariNKamarudinSK. Graphene in electrocatalyst and proton conductiong membrane in fuel cell applications: an overview. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2017; 69: 862–870.
16.
PrakashJPremaDVenkataprasannaKS, et al.Nanocomposite chitosan film containing graphene oxide/hydroxyapatite/gold for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromolecules2020; 154: 62–71.
17.
SumitGVinayakSShilpaS. Graphene-based nanomaterials for drug delivery and tissue engineering. J Controlled Release2014; 173: 75–88.
18.
GaoFWangQXGaoNN, et al.Hydroxyapatite/chemically reduced graphene oxide composite: environment-friendly synthesis and high-performance electrochemical sensing for hydrazine. Biosens Bioelectron2017; 97: 238–245.
19.
XiongGYLuoHLZuoGF, et al.Novel porous graphene oxide and hydroxyapatite nanosheets-reinforced sodium alginate hybrid nanocomposites for medical applications. Mater Characterization2015; 107: 419–425.
20.
RamadasMBharathGPonpandianN, et al.Investigation on biophysical properties of hydroxyapatite/Graphene Oxide (HAp/GO) based binary nanocomposite for biomedical applications. Mater Chem Phys2017; 199: 179–184.
21.
FanZJWangJQWangZF, et al.One-pot synthesis of graphene/hydroxyapatite nanorod composite for tissue engineering. Carbon2014; 66(1): 407–416.
22.
LuoYShenHFangYX, et al.Enhanced proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells on graphene oxide-incorporated electrospun poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanofibrous mats. Acs Appl Mater Inter2015; 7(11): 6331–6339.
23.
LuJYChengCHeYS, et al.Multilayered graphene hydrogel membranes for guided bone regeneration. Adv Mater2016; 28(21): 4025–4031.
24.
LuJYHeYSChengC, et al.Self-supporting graphene hydrogel film as an experimental platform to evaluate the potential of graphene for bone regeneration. Adv Funct Mater2013; 23(28): 3494–3502.
25.
WangWLiuYYangC, et al.Mesoporous bioactive glass combined with graphene oxide scaffolds for bone repair. Int J Biol Sci2019; 15(10): 2156–2169.
26.
TengYLiuZYYaoK, et al.Preparation of Attapulgite/CoFe2O4 magnetic composites for efficient adsorption of tannic acid from aqueous solution. Int J Environ Res Public2019; 16(12): 2187. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16122187.
27.
LiuYKangYRMuB, et al.Attapulgite/bentonite interactions for methylene blue adsorption characteristics from aqueous solution. Chem Eng J2014; 237: 403–410.
28.
PanDQFanQHFanFY, et al.Removal of uranium contaminant from aqueous solution by chitosan@attapulgite composite. Separat Purif Technol2017; 177: 86–93.
29.
ZhangHYWuFWangNX, et al.Improvement of growth and proliferation of SP2/0 cell by Natural-nanomaterial Attapulgite. Prog Mod Biomed2010; 10(6): 1039–1042.
30.
WangZZhaoYLLuoY, et al.Attapulgite-doped electrospun poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanofibers enable enhanced osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. RSC Adv2015; 5(4): 2383–2391.
31.
ZhangXMWangSYLiG, et al.The study of osteogenic induction of typeⅠCollagen/Poly( caprolactone)/Attapulgite composite scaffold materials in vitro. China Biotechnol2016; 36(5): 27–33.
32.
NingYQinWRenYH, et al.Effect of icariin/attapulgite/collagen type Ⅰ/polycaprolactone composite scaffold in repair of rabbit tibia defect. Chin J Reparative Reconstr2019; 33(9): 1181–1194.
33.
ZhaoHBZhangXMZhouD, et al.Collagen, polycaprolactone and attapulgite composite scaffolds for in vivo bone repair in rabbit models. Biomed Mater2020; 15(4): 045022.
34.
YuanQLLuWBPanYK. Structure and properties of biodegradable wheat gluten/attapulgite nanocomposite sheets. Polym Degrad2010; 95(9): 1581–1587.
35.
WangWJLiAZhangJP, et al.Study on superabsorbent composite. XI. Effect of thermal treatment and acid activation of attapulgite on water absorbency of poly(acrylic acid)/attapulgite superabsorbent composite. Polym Composites2007; 28(3): 397–404.
36.
TianMGaoYLiuY, et al.Bis-GMA/TEGDMA dental composites reinforced with electrospun nylon 6 nanocomposite nanofibers containing highly aligned fibrillar silicate single crystals. Polymer2007; 48(9): 2720–2728.
37.
LiZDuTRuanC, et al.Bioinspired mineralized collagen scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Bioact Mater2021; 6(5): 1491–1511.
38.
SalvatoreLGalloNNataliML, et al.Mimicking the hierarchical organization of natural collagen: toward the development of ideal scaffolding material for tissue regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2021; 9: 644595.
39.
KokuboTTakadamaH. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity?Biomaterials2006; 27(15): 2907–2915.
40.
YanYChenHZhangH, et al.Vascularized 3D printed scaffolds for promoting bone regeneration. Biomaterials2019; 190-191: 97–110.
41.
Hamid RezaRMostafaFFatanhJ, et al.Preparation and characterization of promoted Fe-V/SiO2Nanocatalysts for oxidation of alcohols. J Chem2013; 1: 412308. DOI: 10.1155/2013/412308.
42.
NishinaYSatoKSetoyamaC, et al.Intramolecular and intermolecular perturbation on electronic state of FAD free in solution and bound to flavoproteins: FTIR spectroscopic study by using the C = O stretching vibrations as probes. J Biochem2007; 142(2): 265–272.
43.
Petrie AroninCESadikKWLayAL, et al.Comparative effects of scaffold pore size, pore volume, and total void volume on cranial bone healing patterns using microsphere-based scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A2009; 89(3): 632–641.
44.
RezwanKChenQZBlakerJJ, et al.Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2006; 27(18): 3413–3431.
45.
del RealRPWolkeJGCVallet-RegiM, et al.A new method to produce macropores in calcium phosphate cements. Biomaterials2002; 23(17): 3673–3680.
46.
CysterLAGrantDMHowdleSM, et al.The influence of dispersant concentration on the pore morphology of hydroxyapatite ceramics for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials2005; 26(7): 697–702.
PanYZWuTFBaoHQ, et al.Green fabrication of chitosan films reinforced with parallel aligned graphene oxide. Carbohydr Polym2011; 83(4): 1908–1915.
49.
PanZHeLQiuL, et al.Mechanical properties and microstructure of a graphene oxide–cement composite. Cem Concr Compos2015; 58: 140–147.
50.
ChenLDengCJLiJY, et al.3D printing of a lithium-calcium-silicate crystal bioscaffold with dual bioactivities for osteochondral interface reconstruction. Biomaterials2019; 196: 138–150.
51.
ZhuWChenTLiY, et al.High performances of artificial nacre-like graphene oxide-carrageenan bio-nanocomposite films. Materials (Basel)2017; 10(5); 536.
52.
TzivelekaLASapalidisAKikionisS, et al.Hybrid sponge-like scaffolds based on ulvan and gelatin: design, characterization and evaluation of their potential use in bone tissue engineering. Materials2020; 13(7): 1763. DOI: 10.3390/ma13071763.
53.
YaoQZhangWJHuY, et al.Electrospun collagen/poly(L-lactic acid-co-epsilon-caprolactone) scaffolds for conjunctival tissue engineering. Exp Therapeutic Med2017; 14(5): 4141–4147.
54.
WuXLiWChenK, et al.A tough PVA/HA/COL composite hydrogel with simple process and excellent mechanical properties. Mater Today Commun2019; 21: 100702.
55.
KanimozhiKKhaleel BashaSSugantha KumariV. Processing and characterization of chitosan/PVA and methylcellulose porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Ence Eng C2016; 61: 484–491.
56.
WuLDingJ. In vitro degradation of three-dimensional porous poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials2004; 25(27): 5821–5830.
57.
ZadpoorAA. Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry. Biomater Ence2015; 3(2): 231–245.
58.
ZhangYYangTLLiX, et al.Functional analyses reveal the essential role of SOX6 and RUNX2 in the communication of chondrocyte and osteoblast. Osteoporos Int2015; 26(2): 553–561.
59.
ToshihisaK. Roles of Runx2 in skeletal development. Adv Exp Med Biol2017; 962: 83–93.
60.
WildmanBJGodfreyTCRehanM, et al.MICROmanagement of Runx2 function in skeletal cells. Curr Mol Biol Rep2019; 5(1): 55–64.
61.
LiQFWangZL. Expression of ALP, Runx2 and OCN in the BMSCs of Rats’ alveolar bone after molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2017; 2: 77–82.
62.
HutchingsGMoncrieffLDompeC, et al.Bone regeneration, reconstruction and use of osteogenic cells; from basic knowledge, animal models to clinical trials. J Clin Med2020; 9(1): 139.
63.
LiangLZhouWYuJF, et al.Effects of Endothelin receptor on alkaline phosphatase activity and production of osteocalcin of periodontal ligament cells. Chin J Prosthodont2015; 16(02): 68–71.
64.
WuXPengR. Icariin with different concentrations promotes osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Chin J Tissue Eng Res2018; 22(5): 669–674.
65.
SweeneySAdamcakova-DoddAThornePS, et al.Biocompatibility of multi-imaging engineered mesoporous silica nanoparticles: in vitro and adult and fetal in vivo studies. J Biomed Nanotechnol2017; 13(5): 544–558.
66.
NielsenFHPoellotR. Dietary silicon affects bone turnover differently in ovariectomized and sham-operated growing rats. J Trace Elem Exp Med2004; 17(3): 137–149.
67.
WangMHZhongHBFanYC, et al.Spark plasma sintering of bioactive Ca2MgSi2O7Ceramics. J Inorg Mater2017; 32(8): 825–830.
68.
KangSParkJBLeeTJ, et al.Covalent conjugation of mechanically stiff graphene oxide flakes to three-dimensional collagen scaffolds for osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Carbon2015; 83: 162–172.
69.
NairMNancyDKrishnanAG, et al.Graphene oxide nanoflakes incorporated gelatin–hydroxyapatite scaffolds enhance osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Nanotechnology2015; 26(16): 161001.
