De Vega Brigita, Dutta Abir, Mumtaz Aisha, Schroeder Bob C, Gerrand Craig, Boyd Ashleigh S, Kalaskar Deepak M
Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Institute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science (IOMS), Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Stanmore, United Kingdom.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025 Jan 6;12:1473777. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1473777. eCollection 2024.
The study conducts a comparative analysis between two prominent methods for fabricating composites for bone scaffolds-the (solid) solvent method and the solvent-free (melting) method. While previous research has explored these methods individually, this study provides a direct comparison of their outcomes in terms of physicochemical properties, cytocompatibility, and mechanical strength. We also analyse their workflow and scalability potentials.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Polycaprolactone (PCL) and hydroxyapatite (HA) composites were prepared using solvent (chloroform) and melting (180°C) methods, then 3D-printed using an extrusion-based 3D printer to fabricate scaffolds (8 × 8 × 4 mm). Rheology, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), accelerated degradation, mechanical/compression test, wettability/contact angle, live/dead assay, and DNA quantification (Picogreen) assays were evaluated.
The study finds that scaffolds made via the solid solvent method have higher mechanical strength and degradation rate as compared to those from the melting method, while both methods ensure adequate cytocompatibility and homogenous hydroxyapatite distribution, supporting their use in bone tissue engineering.
This research investigates the utility of chloroform as a solvent for PCL composite in a direct comparison with the melting method. It also highlights the differences in workflows between the two methods and their scalability implications, emphasizing the importance of considering workflow efficiency and the potential for automation in scaffold fabrication processes for bone tissue engineering applications.
本研究对用于制造骨支架复合材料的两种主要方法——（固体）溶剂法和无溶剂（熔融）法进行了比较分析。虽然先前的研究已分别探讨了这些方法，但本研究直接比较了它们在物理化学性质、细胞相容性和机械强度方面的结果。我们还分析了它们的工作流程和可扩展性潜力。
设计/方法/途径：使用溶剂（氯仿）法和熔融（180°C）法制备聚己内酯（PCL）和羟基磷灰石（HA）复合材料，然后使用基于挤出的3D打印机进行3D打印以制造支架（8×8×4毫米）。对流变学、扫描电子显微镜（SEM）、能量色散X射线光谱（EDX）、傅里叶变换红外光谱（FTIR）、X射线衍射（XRD）、热重分析（TGA）、差示扫描量热法（DSC）、加速降解、机械/压缩测试、润湿性/接触角、活/死检测和DNA定量（Picogreen）检测进行了评估。
研究发现，与熔融法制备的支架相比，通过固体溶剂法制备的支架具有更高的机械强度和降解速率，而两种方法都确保了足够的细胞相容性和均匀的羟基磷灰石分布，支持它们在骨组织工程中的应用。
本研究调查了氯仿作为PCL复合材料溶剂与熔融法直接比较的效用。它还强调了两种方法在工作流程上的差异及其对可扩展性的影响，强调了在骨组织工程应用的支架制造过程中考虑工作流程效率和自动化潜力的重要性。
