Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 53, Issue 9, pp 6291–6301 | Cite as

3D printing of hydroxyapatite scaffolds with good mechanical and biocompatible properties by digital light processing

  • Yong Zeng
  • Yinzhou Yan
  • Hengfeng Yan
  • Chunchun Liu
  • Peiran Li
  • Peng Dong
  • Ying Zhao
  • Jimin Chen
Biomaterials

Abstract

Hydroxyapatite is a scaffold material widely used in clinical repair of bone defects, but it is difficult for traditional methods to make customized artificial bone implants with complicated shapes. 3D printing biomaterials used as personalized tissue substitutes have the ability to promote and enhance regeneration in areas of defected tissue. The present study aimed at demonstrating the capacity of one 3D printing technique, digital light processing (DLP), to produce HA scaffold. Using HA powder and photopolymer as raw materials, a mixture of HA mass ratio of 30 wt% was prepared by viscosity test. It was used for forming ceramic sample by DLP technology. According to differential scanning calorimetry and thermal gravity analysis, it was revealed that the main temperature range for the decomposition of photopolymer was from 300 to 500 °C. Thus, the two-step sintering process parameters were determined, including sintering temperature range and heating rate. XRD analysis showed that the phase of HA did not change after sintering. SEM results showed that the grain of the sintered ceramic was compact. The compression model was designed by finite element analysis. The mechanical test results showed that the sample had good compression performance. The biological properties of the scaffold were determined by cell culture in vitro. According to the proliferation of cells, it was concluded that the HA scaffold was biocompatible and suitable for cell growth and proliferation. The experimental results show that the DLP technology can be used to form the ceramic scaffold, and the photopolymer in the as-printed sample can be removed by proper high-temperature sintering. The ceramic parts with good compression performance and biocompatibility could be obtained.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project (D151100001615002).

References

  1. 1.
    Farag MM et al (2014) Effect of gelatin addition on fabrication of magnesium phosphate-based scaffolds prepared by additive manufacturing system. Mater Lett 132:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodriguez G et al (2013) Influence of hydroxyapatite on extruded 3D scaffolds. Procedia Eng 59:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zein I et al (2002) Fabrication of 3D chitosan–hydroxyapatite scaffolds using a robotic dispensing system. Biomaterials 23:1169–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roh HS et al (2017) Addition of MgO nanoparticles and plasma surface treatment of three-dimensional printed polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite scaffolds for improving bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C-Mater 74:525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu HD et al (2016) Effect of the particle size and the debinding process on the density of alumina ceramics fabricated by 3D printing based on stereolithography. Ceram Int 42:17290–17294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slots C (2017) Andersendental, Simple additive manufacturing of an osteoconductive ceramic using suspension melt extrusion. Dent Mater 33:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bendtsen ST et al (2017) Development of a novel alginate-polyvinyl alcohol-hydroxyapatite hydrogel for 3D bioprinting bone tissue engineered scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 105:1457–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jakus AE et al (2017) Multi and mixed 3D-printing of graphene-hydroxyapatite hybrid materials for complex tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 105:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee JS et al (2016) Development and analysis of three-dimensional (3D) printed biomimetic ceramic. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 17:1711–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li X et al (2017) Biocompatibility and physicochemical characteristics of poly(ε-caprolactone)/poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/nano-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Design 114:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tian X et al (2009) Process parameters analysis of direct laser sintering and post treatment of porcelain components using Taguchi’s method. J Eur Ceram Soc 29:1903–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muehler T et al (2015) Slurry-based additive manufacturing of ceramics. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 12:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yen HC (2015) Experimental studying on development of slurry-layer casting system for additive manufacturing of ceramics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77:915–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang HH et al (2015) Slurry-based additive manufacturing of ceramic parts by selective laser burn-out. J Eur Ceram Soc 35:981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdullah AM et al (2017) Mechanical and physical properties of highly ZrO2/β-TCP filled polyamide 12 prepared via fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printer for potential craniofacial reconstruction application. Mater Lett 189:307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castro J et al (2017) Fabrication, modeling, and application of ceramic-thermoplastic composites for fused deposition modeling of microwave components. IEEE Trans Microw Theory 65:2073–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zocca A et al (2015) Additive manufacturing of ceramics: issues, potentialities, and opportunities. J Am Ceram Soc 98:1983–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwentenwein M et al (2015) Additive manufacturing of dense alumina ceramics. Int J Appl Ceram Technol 12:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zanchetta ZE et al (2016) Stereolithography of SiOC ceramic microcomponents. Adv Mater 28:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woodward DI et al (2015) Additively-manufactured piezoelectric devices. Phys Status Solidi A 212:2107–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Song X et al (2015) Ceramic fabrication using mask-image-projection-based stereolithography integrated with tape-casting. J Manuf Process 20:456–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhou M et al (2016) Preparation of a defect-free alumina cutting tool via additive manufacturing based on stereolithography–Optimization of the drying and debinding processes. Ceram Int 42:11598–11602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Celine AM et al (2016) Adding biomolecular recognition capability to 3D printed objects. Anal Chem 88:10767–10772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shao HF et al (2017) Bone regeneration in 3D printing bioactive ceramic scaffolds with improved tissue/material interface pore architecture in thin-wall bone defect. Biofabrication 9:025003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhu W et al (2016) 3D printing of functional biomaterials for tissue engineering. Curr Opin Biotech 40:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Laser EngineeringBeijing University of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.Beijing Engineering Research Center of 3D Printing for Digital Medical HealthBeijing University of TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.College of Applied SciencesBeijing University of TechnologyBeijingChina
  4. 4.Capital Aerospace Machinery CompanyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations