Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indirect versus direct 3D printing of hydrogel scaffolds for adipose tissue regeneration Lana Van Damme, Emilie Briant, Phillip Blondeel, Sandra Van Vlierberghe

  • Published:
MRS Advances Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There exists a need for an innovative reconstructive approach for breast reconstruction, tackling current drawbacks and limitations present in the clinic. In this respect, adipose tissue engineering could offer a promising alternative. We have previously shown that methacrylamide-functionalized gelatin scaffolds are suitable to support the adhesion of adipose tissue-derived stem cells as well as their subsequent differentiation into the adipogenic lineage. The current paper aims to compare different techniques to produce such scaffolds including direct versus indirect 3D printing. Extrusion-based (direct) 3D printing was compared to indirect 3D printing exploiting a polylactic acid (PLA) sacrificial mould, thereby focussing on the physico-chemical characteristics of the obtained scaffolds. The results indicate that similar properties can be achieved irrespective of the technique applied. It can therefore be concluded that indirect 3D printing could offer some benefits over direct additive manufacturing (AM) as a more complex design can be created while materials that were previously unsuited for direct printing because of limitations associated with their characteristics (e.g. low viscosity), could potentially be applied as starting materials for indirect 3D printing to generate porous constructs with full control over their design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. F. Bray, Jacques Ferlay, Isabelle Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Hassan El-Sabbagh, “Modern trends in lipomodelling,” GMS Interdiscip. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. DGPW, vol. 6, no. April, 1998.

  3. J. Roostaeian, L. Pavone, A. Da Lio, J. Lipa, J. Festekjian, and C. Crisera, “Immediate placement of implants in breast reconstruction: Patient selection and outcomes,” Plast. Reconstr. Surg., vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 1407–1416, 2011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Vaezi, G. Zhong, H. Kalami, and S. Yang, “Extrusion-based 3D printing technologies for 3D scaffold engineering,” Mater. Technol. Appl., pp. 235–254, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. A. Young and K. L. Chustman, “Injectable biomaterials for adipose tissue engineering,” Biomed. Mater., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. E. Ruoslahti, “Rgd and Other Recognition Sequences for Integrins,” Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 697–715, 1996.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. T. Chen, H. D. Embree, L. Q. Wu, and G. F. Payne, “In vitro protein-polysaccharide conjugation: Tyrosinase-catalyzed conjugation of gelatin and chitosan,” Biopolymers, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 292–302, 2002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. T. Billiet, E. Gevaert, T. De Schryver, M. Cornelissen, and P. Dubruel, “The 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden tissue-engineered constructs with high cell viability,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 2014.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. L. Tytgat et at, “Additive manufacturing of photo-crosslinked gelatin scaffolds for adipose tissue engineering,” Acta Biomater., 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Flynn and K. A. Woodhouse, “Adipose tissue engineering with cells in engineered matrices,” Organogenesis, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 228–235, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. S. Peltola, F. Melchels, D. Grijpma, and M. Kellomaki, “A review of rapid prototyping techniques for tissue engineering purposes.,” AnnMed, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 268–80, 2008.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. C. Z. Liu, E. Sachlos, D. A. Wahl, Z. W. Han, and J. T. Czernuszka, “On the manufacturability of scaffold mould using a 3D printing technology,” Rapid Prototyp. J., 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Rumpler, A. Woesz, J. W. C. Dunlop, J. T. Van Dongen, and P. Fratzl, “The effect of geometry on three-dimensional tissue growth,” J. R. Soc. Interface, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Van Hoorick et at, “(Photo-)crosslinkable gelatin derivatives for biofabrication applications,” Acta Biomater., 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. De Maria, A. De Acutis, and G. Vozzi, “Indirect rapid prototyping for tissue engineering,” in Essentials of 3D Biofabrication and Translation, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Van Hoorick et at, “Indirect additive manufacturing as an elegant tool for the production of self-supporting low density gelatin scaffolds,” J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med., 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. I. Van Den Bulcke, B. Bogdanov, N. De Rooze, E. H. Schacht, M. Cornelissen, and H. Berghmans, “Structural and rheological properties of methacrylamide modified gelatin hydrogels,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–38, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. D. Yoo, “New paradigms in hierarchical porous scaffold design for tissue engineering,” Mater. Sci. Eng. C, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1759–1772, 2013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Ansari et at, “Hydrogel elasticity and microarchitecture regulate dental-derived mesenchymal stem cell-host immune system cross-talk,” Acta Biomater., vol. 60, pp. 181–189, 2017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. H. Shih, T. Greene, M. Korc, C. Lin, W. Lafayette, and B. Simon, “Modular and adaptable tumor niche prepared from visible light-initiated thiol-norbornene photopolymerization,” vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 3872–3882, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. C. Negrini, P. Tarsini, M. C. Tanzi, and S. Fare, “Chemically crosslinked gelatin hydrogels as scaffolding materials for adipose tissue engineering,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 47104, pp. 1–12, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Y. Huri, B. A. Ozilgen, D. L. Hutton, and W. L. Grayson, “Scaffold pore size modulates in vitro osteogenesis of human adipose-derived stem/stromal cells,” Biomed. Mater., vol. 9, no. 4, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  23. L. Tytgat et at, “Evaluation of 3D printed gelatin-based scaffolds with varying pore size for MSC-based adipose tissue engineering,” Macromot Biosci., 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  24. S. Hong et at, “3D Printing of Highly Stretchable and Tough Hydrogels into Complex, Cellularized Structures,” Adv. Mater., 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Odent, T. J. Wallin, W. Pan, K. Kruemplestaedter, R. F. Shepherd, and E. P. Giannelis, “Highly Elastic, Transparent, and Conductive 3D-Printed Ionic Composite Hydrogels,” Adv. Funct. Mater., 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  26. K. Holzl, S. Lin, L. Tytgat, S. Van Vilerberghe, L. Gu, and A. Ovsianikov, “Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting,” Biofabrication, vol. 8, pp. 1–19, 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Do, B. Khorsand, S. M. Geary, and A. K. Salem, “3D Printing of Scaffolds for Tissue Regeneration Applications,” Adv Heal. Mater, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1742–1762, 2015.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. J. W. Nichol and A. Khademhosseini, “Modular tissue engineering: Engineering biological tissues from the bottom up,” Soft Matters, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1312–1319, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. A. L. Rutz, K. E. Hyland, A. E. Jakus, W. R. Burghardt, and R. N. Shah, “A multimaterial bioink method for 3D printing tunable, cell-compatible hydrogels,” Adv. Mater., vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1607–1614, 2015.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. F. Urciuolo, G. Imparato, A. Totaro, and P. A. Netti, “Building a tissue in vitro from the bottom up: Implications in regenerative medicine.,” Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc. J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 213–217, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. R. Tiruvannamalai-Annamalai, D. R. Armant, and H. W. T. Matthew, “A glycosaminoglycan based, modular tissue scaffold system for rapid assembly of perfusable, high cell density, engineered tissues,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Goyanes, M. Kobayashi, R. Martinez-Pacheco, S. Gaisford, and A. W. Basit, “Fused-filament 3D printing of drug products: Microstructure analysis and drug release characteristics of PVA-based caplets,” Int. J. Pharm., 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Polymer Chemistry & Biomaterials Group - Centre of Macromolecular Chemistry (CMaC) - Gent Alliance for Tissue Engineering (GATE) - Department of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, S4-Bis, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Lana Van Damme, Emilie Briant &  Sandra Van Vlierberghe

  2. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 2K12, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Phillip Blondeel

Authors
  1. Lana Van Damme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emilie Briant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Phillip Blondeel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandra Van Vlierberghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Damme, L., Briant, E., Blondeel, P. et al. Indirect versus direct 3D printing of hydrogel scaffolds for adipose tissue regeneration Lana Van Damme, Emilie Briant, Phillip Blondeel, Sandra Van Vlierberghe. MRS Advances 5, 855–864 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2020.117

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2020.117

Search

Navigation