Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 14, pp 10437–10446 | Cite as

3D printing of bioglass-reinforced β-TCP porous bioceramic scaffolds

  • Yule Ma
  • Honglian DaiEmail author
  • Xiaolong Huang
  • Yanpiao Long
Materials for life sciences
  • 225 Downloads

Abstract

The use of bioglass (BG) has been proved to be an effective strategy for reducing the sintering temperature and improving the degradability of bioceramics. In this work, a Na2O–CaO–MgO–P2O5 bioglass with a low melting temperature and an average particle size of 1.3 μm and crystalline β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) with an average particle size of 600 nm were first prepared separately. 3D printing was then used to fabricate the β-TCP/BG composite porous ceramic scaffolds. The Na2O–CaO–MgO–P2O5 bioglass-reinforced β-TCP porous ceramic scaffolds demonstrated a significant enhancement in their mechanical properties, degradability and biocompatibility compared with pure β-TCP ceramics. The results showed that the compressive strength and elastic modulus of the reinforced β-TCP ceramic scaffold were 8.34 MPa and 208.5 MPa, respectively, and the degradation rate of the β-TCP porous ceramic scaffolds increased by a factor of 2.99. In addition, the optimized scaffold distinctly promoted MC3T3-E1 osteoblast cell proliferation. Na2O–CaO–MgO–P2O5 bioglass-reinforced β-TCP porous ceramic scaffold has great potential for application in bone regeneration.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the grant from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFB1105500, 2016YEC1101605, 2016YFB1101302 and 2017YFC1103800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51772233) and the Application Foundation and Front research program of Wuhan (No. 2018010401011273).

Supplementary material

10853_2019_3632_MOESM1_ESM.docx (954 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 953 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bergmann C, Lindner M, Zhang W et al (2010) 3D printing of bone substitute implants using calcium phosphate and bioactive glasses. J Eur Ceram Soc 30:2563–2567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vacanti JP, Langer R (1999) Tissue engineering: the design and fabrication of living replacement devices for surgical reconstruction and transplantation. The Lancet 354:S32–S34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ et al (2004) Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murphy CM, Haugh MG, O’Brien FJ (2010) The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen–glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 31:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rouwkema J, Rivron NC, van Blitterswijk CA (2008) Vascularization in tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol 26:434–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    LeGeros RZ, Lin S, Rohanizadeh R et al (2003) Biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics: preparation, properties and applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 14:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sánchez-Salcedo S, Arcos D, Vallet-Regí M (2008) Upgrading calcium phosphate scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Key Eng Mater 377:19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flautre B, Descamps M, Delecourt C et al (2001) Porous HA ceramic for bone replacement: role of the pores and interconnections—experimental study in the rabbit. J Mater Sci Mater Med 12:679–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klein C, de Groot K, Chen W et al (1994) Osseous substance formation induced in porous calcium phosphate ceramics in soft tissues. Biomaterials 15:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orlovskii VP, Komlev VS, Barinov SM (2002) Hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-based ceramics. Inorg Mater 38:973–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daculsi G, Laboux O, Malard O, Weiss P (2003) Current state of the art of biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. J Mater Sci Mater Med 14:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le Huec JC, Schaeverbeke T, Clement D et al (1995) Influence of porosity on the mechanical resistance of hydroxyapatite ceramics under compressive stress. Biomaterials 16:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwon S-H, Jun Y-K, Hong S-H, Kim H-E (2003) Synthesis and dissolution behavior of β-TCP and HA/β-TCP composite powders. J Eur Ceram Soc 23:1039–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang Z, Guo Z, Bai H et al (2013) Clinical evaluation of beta-TCP in the treatment of lacunar bone defects: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Mater Sci Eng C 33:1894–1899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu Z, Zreiqat H (2010) Beta-tricalcium phosphate exerts osteoconductivity through α2β1 integrin and down-stream MAPK/ERK signaling pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 394:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiltfang J, Merten HA, Schlegel KA et al (2002) Degradation characteristics of α and β tri-calcium-phosphate (TCP) in minipigs. J Biomed Mater Res 63:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chappard D, Guillaume B, Mallet R et al (2010) Sinus lift augmentation and beta-TCP: a microCT and histologic analysis on human bone biopsies. Micron 41:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Houmard M, Fu Q, Genet M et al (2013) On the structural, mechanical, and biodegradation properties of HA/beta-TCP robocast scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 101:1233–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oonishi H, Oomamiuda H (2016) Degradation/resorption in bioactive ceramics in orthopaedics. In: Murphy W, Black J, Hastings G (eds) Handbook of biomaterial properties. Springer, New York, pp 495–507Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hench LL, Polak JM (2002) Third-generation biomedical materials. Science 295:1014–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deng C, Yao Q, Feng C et al (2017) 3D printing of bilineage constructive biomaterials for bone and cartilage regeneration. Adv Funct Mater 27:1703117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Handschel J, Wiesmann HP, Stratmann U et al (2002) TCP is hardly resorbed and not osteoconductive in a non-loading calvarial model. Biomaterials 23:1689–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen QZ, Thompson ID, Boccaccini AR (2006) 45S5 Bioglass®-derived glass–ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27:2414–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oonishi H, Kushitani S et al (1997) Particulate bioglass compared with hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute. Clin Orthop Relat Res 334:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, Buttery LDK et al (2001) Gene-expression profiling of human osteoblasts following treatment with the ionic products of Bioglass® 45S5 dissolution. J Biomed Mater Res 55:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR (2006) Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27:3413–3431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, Buttery LDK et al (2000) Ionic products of bioactive glass dissolution increase proliferation of human osteoblasts and induce insulin-like growth factor II mRNA expression and protein synthesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 276:461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dai C, Guo H, Lu J et al (2011) Osteogenic evaluation of calcium/magnesium-doped mesoporous silica scaffold with incorporation of rhBMP-2 by synchrotron radiation-based μC. Biomaterials 32:8506–8517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feng B, Jinkang Z, Zhen W et al (2011) The effect of pore size on tissue ingrowth and neovascularization in porous bioceramics of controlled architecture in vivo. Biomed Mater 6:015007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramay HR, Zhang M (2004) Biphasic calcium phosphate nanocomposite porous scaffolds for load-bearing bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 25:5171–5180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ et al (2004) Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26:5474–5491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu S, Liu X, Yeung KWK (2014) Biomimetic porous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng R 80:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leukers B, Gülkan H, Irsen SH et al (2005) Hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering made by 3D printing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16:1121–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Inzana JA, Olvera D, Fuller SM et al (2014) 3D printing of composite calcium phosphate and collagen scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomaterials 35:4026–4034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wu C, Fan W, Zhou Y et al (2012) 3D-printing of highly uniform CaSiO 3 ceramic scaffolds: preparation, characterization and in vivo osteogenesis. J Mater Chem 22:12288–12295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Castilho M, Moseke C, Ewald A et al (2014) Direct 3D powder printing of biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds for substitution of complex bone defects. Biofabrication 6:015006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neufurth M, Wang X, Wang S et al (2017) 3D printing of hybrid biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: calcium-polyphosphate microparticles encapsulated by polycaprolactone. Acta Biomater 64:377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cox SC, Thornby JA, Gibbons GJ et al (2015) 3D printing of porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds intended for use in bone tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng, C 47:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pei X, Ma L, Zhang B et al (2017) Creating hierarchical porosity hydroxyapatite scaffolds with osteoinduction by three-dimensional printing and microwave sintering. Biofabrication 9:045008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu W, Xu C, Yi J, Dai H (2018) The effect of different hydroxyapatite microparticles on the osteogenic differentiation of MC3T3-E1 preosteoblasts. J Mater Chem B 6:5234–5242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brunner TJ, Grass RN, Bohner M et al (2007) Effect of particle size, crystal phase and crystallinity on the reactivity of tricalcium phosphate cements for bone reconstruction. J Mater Chem 17:4072–4078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee S-H, Kochawattana S, Messing GL et al (2006) Solid-state reactive sintering of transparent polycrystalline Nd:YAG ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 89:1945–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dunne M, Corrigan O, Ramtoola Z (2000) Influence of particle size and dissolution conditions on the degradation properties of polylactide-co-glycolide particles. Biomaterials 21:1659–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lin K, Chang J, Liu Z, Zeng Y, Shen R (2009) Fabrication and characterization of 45S5 bioglass reinforced macroporous calcium silicate bioceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc 29:2937–2943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang S, Falk MM, Rashad A et al (2011) Evaluation of 3D nano–macro porous bioactive glass scaffold for hard tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med 22:1195–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen L, Deng C, Li J et al (2019) 3D printing of a lithium-calcium-silicate crystal bioscaffold with dual bioactivities for osteochondral interface reconstruction. Biomaterials 196:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology for Materials Synthesis and ProcessingWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Biomedical Materials and Engineering Research Center of Hubei ProvinceWuhanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations