Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 9, pp 4262–4273 | Cite as

Laser-assisted fabrication and non-invasive imaging of 3D cell-seeding constructs for bone tissue engineering

Original Paper

Abstract

We report on laser-assisted fabrication and non-invasive imaging of porous 3D cell-seeding constructs (3D-CSCs) for bone tissue engineering. The 3D structures were built by two-photon polymerization-direct writing (2PP_DW) of IP-L780 photopolymer and consist in arrays of vertical microtubes arranged in triangular lattices. The microtubes were tightly, medium, and rarely packed, according to the constants of the triangular lattices of 8, 12, and 24 μm, respectively. The efficiency of the laser-generated 3D-CSCs for new bone formation was assessed in MG63 osteoblast-like cells cultures. High spatial resolution 3D images of the cell-seeded 3D-CSCs were obtained by digital holographic microscopy (DHM). The recorded holograms allowed the simultaneous evaluation of the 3D-CSCs and of the seeded cells, in terms of 3D shapes and dimensions, without intruding into the cells natural environment. The seeded cells, in particular the cells nuclei, conformed to the micro-architectures of the 3D-CSCs. Furthermore, the osteogenic potential of the 3D-CSCs was assessed in terms of cell morphology, viability, and level of mineralization. The microtubes packing density that allowed the seeded osteoblasts to reach the highest level of mineralization was established.

References

  1. 1.
    Nikkhah M, Edalat F, Manoucheri S, Khademhosseini A (2012) Engineering microscale topographies to control the cell–substrate interface. Biomaterials 33:5230–5246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeremy M, Holzwarth JM, Ma PX (2011) Biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 32:9622–9629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayati AN, Rezaie HR, Hosseinalipour SM (2011) Preparation of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)/nano-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Lett 65:736–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris LD, Kim BS, Mooney DJ (1998) Open pore biodegradable matrices formed with gas foaming. J Biomed Mater Res 42:396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pham QP, Sharma U, Mikos AG (2006) Electrospinning of polymeric nanofibers for tissue engineering applications: a review. Tissue Eng 12:1197–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harazim SM, Xi W, Schmidt CK, Sanchez S, Schmidt OG (2012) Fabrication and applications of large arrays of multifunctional rolled-up SiO/SiO2 microtubes. J Mater Chem 22:2878–2884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harazim SM, Bolanos Quinones VA, Kiravittaya S, Sanchez S, Schmidt OG (2012) Lab-in-a-tube: on-chip integration of glass optofluidic ring resonators for label-free sensing applications. Lab Chip 12:2649–2655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Froeter P, Huang Y, Cangellaris OV, Huang W, Dentz EW, Gillette MU, Williams JC, Li X (2014) toward intelligent synthetic neural circuits: directing and accelerating neuron cell growth by self-rolled-up silicon nitride microtube array. ACS Nano 8:11108–11117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang X, Yu G, Han X, Zhang H, Ren J, Wu X, Qu Y (2014) Biodegradable and multifunctional polymer micro-tubes for targeting photothermal therapy. Int J Mol Sci 15:11730–11741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thavornyutikarn B, Chantarapanich N, Sitthiseripratip K, Thouas GA, Chen Q (2014) Bone tissue engineering scaffolding: computer-aided scaffolding techniques. Prog Biomater 3:61–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Medina F, Lopez H, Martinez E, Machado BI, Hernandez DH, Martinez L, Lopez MI, Wicker RB, Bracke J (2010) Next-generation biomedical implants using additive manufacturing of complex, cellular and functional mesh arrays. Philos Trans R Soc A 368:1999–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutmacher DW, Sittinger M, Risbud MV (2004) Scaffold-based tissue engineering: rationale for computer-aided design and solid free-form fabrication systems. Trends Biotechnol 22:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seol YJ, Park JY, Kim SW, Park SJ, Cho DW (2013) A new method of fabricating robust freeform 3D ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration. Biotechnol Bioeng 110:1444–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tesavibul P, Felzmann R, Bruber S, Liska R, Thompson I, Boccaccini AR, Stampfl J (2012) Processing of 45S5 Bioglas by lithography-based additive manufacturing. J Mater Lett 74:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiß T, Schade R, Laube T, Berg A, Hildebrand G, Wyrwa R, Schnabelrauch M, Liefeith K (2011) Two-photon polymerization of biocompatible photopolymers for microstructured 3D biointerfaces. Adv Eng Mater 13:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ovsianikov A, Schlie S, Ngezahayo A, Haverich A, Chichkov BN (2007) Two-photon polymerization technique for microfabrication of CAD-designed 3D scaffolds from commercially available photosensitive materials. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 1:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koroleva A, Gill AA, Ortega I, Haycock JW, Schlie S, Gittard SD, Chichkov BN, Claeyssens F (2012) Two-photon polymerization-generated and micromolding-replicated 3D scaffolds for peripheral neural tissue engineering applications. Biofabrication 4:025005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fedorovich NE, Oudshoorn MH, van Geemen D, Hennink WE, Alblas J, Dhert WJA (2009) The effect of photopolymerization on stem cells embedded in hydrogels. Biomaterials 30:344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bryant SJ, Bender RJ, Durand KL, Anseth KS (2004) Encapsulating chondrocytes in degrading PEG hydrogels with high modulus: engineering gel structural changes to facilitate cartilaginous tissue production. Biotechnol Bioeng 86:747–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marquet P, Rappaz B, Magistretti PJ, Cuche E, Emery Y, Colomb T, Depeursinge C (2005) Digital holographic microscopy: a non-invasive contrast imaging technique allowing quantitative visualization of living cells with subwavelength axial accuracy. Opt Lett 30:468–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paun IA, Zamfirescu M, Mihailescu M, Luculescu CR, Mustaciosu CC, Dorobantu I, Calenic B, Dinescu M (2014) Laser micro-patterning of biodegradable polymer blends for tissue engineering. J Mater Sci. doi:10.1007/s10853-014-8652-y Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mihailescu M, Popescu RC, Matei A, Acasandrei AM, Paun IA, Dinescu M (2014) Investigation of osteoblast cells behavior in polymeric 3D micropatterned scaffolds using digital holographic microscopy. Appl Optics 53:4850–4858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zamfirescu M, Ulmeanu M, Jipa F, Catalina R, Anghel I, Dabu R (2010) Application of ultrashort lasers pulses in micro- and nano-technologies. J Optoelectron Adv Mater 12:2179–2184Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Abrams GA, Goodman SL, Nealey PF, Franco M, Murphy C (2000) Nanoscale topography of the basement membrane underlying the corneal epithelium of the rhesus macaque. Cell Tissue Res 299:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pamula E, De Cupere V, Dufrene YF, Rouxhet PG (2004) Nanoscale organization of adsorbed collagen: influence of substrate hydrophobicity and adsorption time. J Colloid Interface Sci 271:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Docheva D, Padula D, Popov P, Mutschler W, Clausen-Schaumann H, Schieker M (2008) Researching into the cellular shape, volume and elasticity of mesenchymal stem cells, osteoblasts and osteosarcoma cells by atomic force microscopy. J Cell Mol Med 12:537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marino A, Filippeschi C, Genchi GC, Mattoli V, Mazzolai B, Ciofani G (2014) The Osteoprint: a bioinspired two-photon polymerized 3-D structure for the enhancement of bone-like cell differentiation. Acta Biomater 10:4304–4313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirmizidis G, Birch MA (2009) Microfabricated grooved substrates influence cell-cell communication and osteoblast differentiation in vitro. Tissue Eng Part A 15:1427–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolind K, Dolatshahi-Pirouz A, Lovmand J, Pedersen FS, Foss M, Besenbacher F (2010) A combinatorial screening of human fibroblast responses on micro-structured surfaces. Biomaterials 31:9182–9191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ghibaudo M, Trichet L, Le Digabel J, Richert A, Hersen P, Ladoux B (2009) Substrate topography induces a crossover from 2D to 3D behaviour in fibroblast migration. Biophys J 97:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cukierman E, Pankov R, Yamada KM (2002) Cell interactions with three-dimensional matrices. Curr Opin Cell Biol 14:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seo CH, Furukawa K, Suzuki Y, Kasagi N, Ichiki T, Ushida T (2011) A topographically optimized substrate with well-ordered lattice micropatterns for enhancing the osteogenic differentiation of murine mesenchymal stem cells. Macromol Biosci 11:938–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jäger M, Zilkens C, Zanger K, Krauspe R (2007) Significance of nano-and microtopography for cell-surface interactions in orthopaedic implants. BioMed Res Int 2007:69036Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fu J, Wang YK, Yang MT, Desai RA, Yu X, Liu Z et al (2010) Mechanical regulation of cell function with geometrically modulated elastomeric substrates. Nat Methods 7:733–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politehnica UniversityBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Laser DepartmentNational Institute of Lasers, Plasma and Radiation PhysicsMagureleRomania
  3. 3.Center for Advanced Laser Technologies - CETALNational Institute of Lasers, Plasma and Radiation PhysicsMagureleRomania
  4. 4.National Institute of Physics and Nuclear EngineeringMagureleRomania

Personalised recommendations