Approximate Optimization Study of Light Curing Waterborne Polyurethane Materials for the Construction of 3D Printed Cytocompatible Cartilage Scaffolds
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.2. The Preparation of Water-Based Light-Cured PU/TPU Composites
2.3. Graft Fabrication
2.4. Mechanical Testing
2.5. Cell Adhesion Test
2.6. Cell Viability Test
2.7. Statistics
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Diametral Tensile Strength
3.2. Young’s Modulus
3.3. Cell Adhesion Amount
3.4. Cell Viability
3.5. The Prediction and Verification of Optimal Factor-Level Combination
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shimomura, K.; Moriguchi, Y.; Murawski, C.D.; Yoshikawa, H.; Nakamura, N. Osteochondral tissue engineering with biphasic scaffold: Current strategies and techniques. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2014, 20, 468–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vinatier, C.; Mrugala, D.; Jorgensen, C.; Guicheux, J.; Noel, D. Cartilage engineering: A crucial combination of cells, biomaterials and biofactors. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gillogly, S.D.; Voight, M.; Blackburn, T. Treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee with autologous chondrocyte implantation. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1998, 28, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newman, A.P. Articular cartilage repair. Am. J. Sports Med. 1998, 26, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santo, V.E.; Gomes, M.E.; Mano, J.F.; Reis, R.L. Controlled release strategies for bone, cartilage, and osteochondral engineering—Part I: Recapitulation of native tissue healing and variables for the design of delivery systems. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2013, 19, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ochi, M.; Uchio, Y.; Kawasaki, K.; Wakitani, S.; Iwasa, J. Transplantation of cartilage-like tissue made by tissue engineering in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2002, 84, 571–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, L.; Brittberg, M.; Kiviranta, I.; Akerlund, E.L.; Lindahl, A. Autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Biomechanics and long-term durability. Am. J. Sports Med. 2002, 30, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yates, J.W.J. The effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage lesions in workers’ compensation patients. Orthopedics 2003, 26, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalson, N.S.; Gikas, P.D.; Briggs, T.W.R. Current strategies for knee cartilage repair. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2010, 64, 1444–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huneault, M.A. Preparation of interconnected poly (ε-caprolactone) porous scaffolds by a combination of polymer and salt particulate leaching. Polymer 2006, 47, 4703–4717. [Google Scholar]
- Rakovsky, A.; Gotman, I.; Rabkin, E.; Gutmanas, E.Y. β-TCP-polylactide composite scaffolds with high strength and enhanced permeability prepared by a modified salt leaching method. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 32, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutmacher, D.W. Scaffold design and fabrication technologies for engineering tissues-state of the art and future perspectives. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2001, 12, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, B.; Long, Y.Z.; Zhang, H.D.; Li, M.M.; Duvail, J.L.; Jiang, X.Y.; Yin, H.L. Advances in three-dimensional nanofibrous macrostructures via electrospinning. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2014, 39, 862–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, L.; Hao, W.; Jiang, M.; Huang, J.; Yan, Y.; Hu, Y. Bony defect repair in rabbit using hybrid rapid prototyping polylactic-co-glycolic acid/beta-tricalciumphosphate collagen I/apatite scaffold and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Indian J. Orthop. 2013, 47, 388–394. [Google Scholar]
- Park, S.H.; Park, D.S.; Shin, J.W.; Kang, Y.G.; Kim, H.K.; Yoon, T.R.; Shin, J.-W. Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering fabricated from two different materials by the rapid prototyping technique: PCL versus PLGA. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2012, 23, 2671–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, C.-P.; Chen, Y.-Y.; Hsieh, M.-F. Biofabrication and in vitro study of hydroxyapatite/mPEG-PCL-mPEG scaffolds for bone tissue engineering using air pressure-aided deposition technology. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2013, 33, 680–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, T.; Binder, K.W.; Albanna, M.Z.; Dice, D.; Zhao, W.; Yoo, J.J.; Atala, A. Hybrid printing of mechanically and biologically improved constructs for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biofabrication 2013, 5, 15001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, K.-C.; Tseng, C.-S.; Hsu, S. Synthesis and 3D printing of biodegradable polyurethane elastomer by a water-based process for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2014, 3, 1578–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, C.; Qiao, Z.; Jiang, W.; Li, H.; Wei, J.; Zhou, G.; Dai, K. Regeneration of a goat femoral head using a tissue-specific, biphasic scaffold fabricated with CAD/CAM technology. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 6706–6716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeong, W.; Sudarmadji, N.; Yu, H.; Chua, C.; Leong, K.; Venkatraman, S. Porous polycaprolactone scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering fabricated by selective laser sintering. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 2028–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsai, K.-Y.; Lin, H.-Y.; Chen, Y.-W.; Lin, C.-Y.; Hsu, T.-T.; Kao, C.-T. Laser sintered magnesium-calcium silicate/poly-ε-caprolactone scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Materials 2017, 10, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gauvin, R.; Chen, Y.C.; Lee, J.W.; Soman, P.; Zorlutuna, P.; Nichol, J.W.; Bae, H.; Chen, S.; Khademhosseini, A. Microfabrication of complex porous tissue engineering scaffolds using 3D projection stereolithography. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 3824–3834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dean, D.; Jonathan, W.; Siblani, A.; Wang, M.O.; Kim, K.; Mikos, A.G.; Fisher, J.P. Continuous digital light processing (cDLP): Highly accurate additive manufacturing of tissue engineered bone scaffolds. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2012, 7, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, J.-W.; Wicker, R.; Lee, S.-H.; Choi, K.-H.; Ha, C.-S.; Chung, I. Fabrication of 3D biocompatible/biodegradable micro-scaffolds using dynamic mask projection microstereolithography. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 5494–5503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chia, H.N.; Wu, B.M. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J. Biol. Eng. 2015, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elomaa, L.; Teixeira, S.; Hakala, R.; Korhonen, H.; Grijpma, D.W.; Seppälä, J.V. Preparation of poly (ε-caprolactone)-based tissue engineering scaffolds by stereolithography. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 3850–3856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melchels, F.P.; Feijen, J.; Grijpma, D.W. A poly (D, L-lactide) resin for the preparation of tissue engineering scaffolds by stereolithography. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 3801–3809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seck, T.M.; Melchels, F.P.; Feijen, J.; Grijpma, D.W. Designed biodegradable hydrogel structures prepared by stereolithography using poly (ethylene glycol)/poly (d, l-lactide)-based resins. J. Control Release 2010, 148, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bens, A.; Seitz, H.; Bermes, G.; Emons, M.; Pansky, A.; Roitzheim, B.; Tobiasch, E.; Tille, C. Non-toxic flexible photopolymers for medical stereolithography technology. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2007, 13, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharifi, S.; Mirzadeh, H.; Imani, M.; Atai, M.; Ziaee, F. Photopolymerization and shrinkage kinetics of in situ crosslinkable N-vinyl-pyrrolidone/poly (ε-caprolactone fumarate) networks. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2008, 84A, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melchels, F.P.W.; Bertoldi, K.; Gabbrielli, R.; Velders, A.H.; Feijen, J.; Grijpma, D.W. Mathematically defined tissue engineering scaffold architectures prepared by stereolithography. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 6909–6916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Han, L.-H.; Mapili, G.; Chen, S.; Roy, K. Projection microfabrication of three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2008, 130, 021005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, Y.; Yamaoka, H.; Nishizawa, S.; Nagata, S.; Ogasawara, T.; Asawa, Y.; Fujihara, Y.; Takato, T.; Hoshi, K. The optimization of porous polymeric scaffolds for chondrocyte/atelocollagen based tissue-engineered cartilage. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 4506–4516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shie, M.-Y.; Chang, W.-C.; Wei, L.-J.; Huang, Y.-H.; Chen, C.-H.; Shih, C.-T.; Chen, Y.-W.; Shen, Y.-F. 3D printing of cytocompatible water-based light-cured polyurethane with hyaluronic acid for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Materials 2017, 10, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avasatthi, V.; Pawar, H.; Dora, C.P.; Bansod, P.; Gill, M.S.; Suresh, S. A novel nanogel formulation of methotrexate for topical treatment of psoriasis: Optimization, in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 2016, 21, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuurman, W.; Levett, P.A.; Pot, M.W.; van Weeren, P.R.; Dhert, W.J.A.; Hutmacher, D.W.; Melchels, F.P.W.; Klein, T.J.; Malda, J. Gelatin-methacrylamide hydrogels as potential biomaterials for fabrication of tissue-engineered cartilage constructs. Macromol. Biosci. 2013, 13, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakitani, S.; Kimura, T.; Hirooka, A.; Ochi, T.; Yoneda, M.; Yasui, N.; Owaki, H.; Ono, K. Repair of rabbit articular surfaces with allograft chondrocytes embedded in collagen gel. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1989, 71, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triaminingsih, S.; Eriwati, Y.K.; Harahap, S.A.; Agustina, R.G. Influence of curing time and color shade on diametral tensile strength of bulk fill composite resins. J. Int. Dent. Med. Res. 2018, 11, 441–444. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 10993-5:2009 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Part 5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
- Chiu, Y.-C.; Shen, Y.-F.; Lee, A.K.-X.; Lin, S.-H.; Wu, Y.-C.; Chen, Y.W. 3D printing of amino resin-based photosensitive materials on multi-parameter optimization design for vascular engineering applications. Polymers 2019, 11, 1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woodfield, T.B.F.; Malda, J.; de Wijn, J.; Peters, F.; Riesle, J.; van Blitterswijk, C.A. Design of porous scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering using a three-dimensional fiber-deposition technique. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 4149–4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, W.; Kawazoe, N.; Lin, X.; Dong, J.; Chen, G. The influence of structural design of PLGA/collagen hybrid scaffolds in cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 2141–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, L.; Yu, F.; Shi, J.; Shen, S.; Teng, H.; Yang, J.; Wang, X.; Jiang, Q. In situ repair of bone and cartilage defects using 3D scanning and 3D printing. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Experimental Factor | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low level | 50 | 0.1 | 7 | 1 | 50 |
High Level | 100 | 0.3 | 25 | 2 | 70 |
Response Variables | Range |
---|---|
DTS (MPa) | 0.6–4.5 |
Young’s modulus (MPa) | 20–30 |
Cell adhesion amount (pc) Cell viability (%) | Max Max |
Run # | A | B | C | D | E | DTS (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Cell Adhesion Amount (pc) | Cell Viability (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 50 | 0.3 | 25 | 1 | 50 | 5.05 | 17.39 | 2.78 × 104 | 126.82 |
2 | 50 | 0.3 | 25 | 1 | 50 | 3.27 | 10.34 | 2.5 × 104 | 129.6 |
3 | 50 | 0.1 | 25 | 2 | 50 | 0.72 | 3.52 | 1.1 × 104 | 97.74 |
4 | 50 | 0.1 | 25 | 2 | 50 | 0.84 | 5.39 | 1.1 × 104 | 114.35 |
5 | 100 | 0.1 | 25 | 1 | 70 | 11.03 | 34.64 | 3.05 × 104 | 92.93 |
6 | 100 | 0.1 | 25 | 1 | 70 | 12.42 | 32.41 | 3.13 × 104 | 75.13 |
7 | 100 | 0.3 | 25 | 2 | 70 | 4.06 | 26.64 | 2.2 × 104 | 120.43 |
8 | 100 | 0.3 | 25 | 2 | 70 | 4.35 | 26.48 | 2.5 × 104 | 122.38 |
9 | 50 | 0.3 | 7 | 1 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
10 | 50 | 0.3 | 7 | 1 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
11 | 100 | 0.3 | 7 | 2 | 50 | 3.00 | 22.15 | 1.65 × 104 | 143.35 |
12 | 100 | 0.3 | 7 | 2 | 50 | 3.16 | 23.12 | 2.2 × 104 | 147.7 |
13 | 50 | 0.1 | 7 | 2 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14 | 50 | 0.1 | 7 | 2 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
15 | 100 | 0.1 | 7 | 1 | 50 | 4.72 | 14.91 | 2.78 × 104 | 86.85 |
16 | 100 | 0.1 | 7 | 1 | 50 | 2.17 | 16.4 | 3.33 × 104 | 86.1 |
Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Value | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 76.69 | 76.69 | 73.23 | <0.0001 |
B | 5.07 | 5.07 | 4.84 | 0.0553 |
C | 51.44 | 51.44 | 49.12 | <0.0001 |
D | 31.73 | 31.73 | 30.29 | 0.0004 |
E | 4.98 | 4.98 | 4.76 | 0.0570 |
BE | 27.75 | 27.75 | 26.49 | 0.0006 |
R2 = 95.45% Adjusted R2 = 92.41% |
Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Value | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1602.20 | 1602.20 | 276.78 | <0.0001 |
B | 22.21 | 22.21 | 3.84 | 0.0786 |
C | 402.30 | 402.30 | 69.50 | <0.0001 |
E | 3.02 | 3.02 | 0.52 | 0.4867 |
BE | 136.36 | 136.36 | 23.56 | 0.0007 |
R2 = 97.40% Adjusted R2 = 96.10% |
Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Value | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 100.53 | 100.53 | 63.08 | <0.0001 |
B | 3.65 | 3.65 | 2.29 | 0.1645 |
C | 25.53 | 25.53 | 16.02 | 0.0031 |
D | 58.92 | 58.92 | 36.96 | 0.0002 |
E | 9.81 | 9.81 | 6.61 | 0.0349 |
BC | 13.59 | 13.59 | 8.53 | 0.0170 |
R2 = 93.66% Adjusted R2 = 89.44% |
Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Value | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1032.53 | 10,320.53 | 297.77 | <0.0001 |
B | 3515.90 | 3515.90 | 101.44 | <0.0001 |
C | 10,783.78 | 10,783.78 | 311.14 | <0.0001 |
D | 1378.64 | 1378.64 | 39.78 | 0.0001 |
E | 17,006.77 | 17,006.77 | 490.68 | <0.0001 |
BE | 480.49 | 480.49 | 13.86 | 0.0047 |
R2 = 99.29% Adjusted R2 = 98.81% |
Run # | A | B | C | D | E | DTS (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Cell Adhesion Amount (pc) | Cell Miability (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 100 | 0.17 | 13.2 | 1.96 | 50 | 2.98 | 21.42 | 2.43 × 104 | 136.64 |
2 | 81.8 | 0.25 | 17.98 | 1.94 | 50 | 3.00 | 20.06 | 2.11 × 104 | 147.67 |
3 | 100 | 0.28 | 7.21 | 1.82 | 50 | 3.00 | 22.44 | 2.08 × 104 | 138.22 |
4 | 76.4 | 0.3 | 23.08 | 2.00 | 60 | 2.91 | 20.00 | 1.98 × 104 | 125.94 |
A | B | C | D | E | DTS (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (MPa) | Cell Adhesion Amount (pc) | Cell Viability (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expectation value | 76.4 | 0.3 | 23.08 | 2 | 60 | 2.91 | 20.00 | 1.98 × 104 | 125.94 |
Experimental value | 76.4 | 0.3 | 23 | 2 | 60 | 3.05 | 22.37 | 2.75 × 104 | 106.89 |
Deviation (%) | 0 | 0 | −0.35 | 0 | 0 | 4.59 | +10.59 | +28 | −17.82 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, Y.-W.; Shie, M.-Y.; Chang, W.-C.; Shen, Y.-F. Approximate Optimization Study of Light Curing Waterborne Polyurethane Materials for the Construction of 3D Printed Cytocompatible Cartilage Scaffolds. Materials 2021, 14, 6804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14226804
Chen Y-W, Shie M-Y, Chang W-C, Shen Y-F. Approximate Optimization Study of Light Curing Waterborne Polyurethane Materials for the Construction of 3D Printed Cytocompatible Cartilage Scaffolds. Materials. 2021; 14(22):6804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14226804
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Yi-Wen, Ming-You Shie, Wen-Ching Chang, and Yu-Fang Shen. 2021. "Approximate Optimization Study of Light Curing Waterborne Polyurethane Materials for the Construction of 3D Printed Cytocompatible Cartilage Scaffolds" Materials 14, no. 22: 6804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14226804