Additive manufacturing of 3D gelatin scaffolds: direct versus indirect printing

Event Abstract Back to Event Additive manufacturing of 3D gelatin scaffolds: direct versus indirect printing Jasper Van Hoorick1, 2, Aleksandr Ovsianikov3, Heidi Declerq4, Maria Cornelissen4, Jürgen Van Erps2, Hugo Thienpont1, 2, Peter Dubruel1 and Sandra Van Vlierberghe1, 2 1 Ghent University, Polymer Chemistry & Biomaterials Group, Belgium 2 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels Photonics Team, Belgium 3 Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Materials Science and Technology, Austria 4 Ghent University, Tissue Engineering Group, Belgium Introduction: To date, gelatin is one of the most frequently applied materials in the biomaterials field. It contains tripeptide Arg-Gly-Asp sequences which are known to interact with the cell’s integrins. In the present work, we evaluate and compare the potential of direct and indirect additive manufacturing for the development of porous gelatin scaffolds for soft tissue engineering. Materials and Methods: Methacrylic anhydride was applied to modify gelatin type B resulting in photo-crosslinkable gelatin derivatives (gel-MOD) [1]. Physical gelation properties were assessed using DSC. Crosslinking was performed using 2 mol% Irgacure 2959 and UV-A light (365 nm). Mechanical properties of hydrogel films were monitored using rheology. The hydrogels were subjected to swelling and degradation studies [2],[3]. The direct additive manufacturing approach was performed using an in-house developed polymer processing device ( figure 1). In short, the device enables the combination of 3D printing and electrospinning of (bio)polymers into one single scaffold. Moreover, it also integrates UV-induced photopolymerization capabilities. Figure 1: In-house developed processing apparatus. For indirect additive manufacturing, PLLA (Mw = 16 kDa) scaffolds were developed via FDM. After curing 5 and 10 w/v% gel-MOD solutions (t = 120 mins), the sacrificial scaffolds were dissolved using chloroform followed by extensive washing with acetone and water. The gelatin scaffolds were characterized using SEM, µCT, optical microscopy and texturometry. Biocompatibility tests using human foreskin fibroblast (HFF) cells were performed on both types of scaffolds (i.e. live/dead staining and histology). Results and Discussion: DSC measurements indicated that the physical gelation of gel-MOD depends on the degree of methacrylation and the concentration. Rheology indicated that cross-linked 5 w/v% gel-MOD (97% methacrylated) exhibits sufficient mechanical properties (G’= 3600 Pa ) for the production of 3D scaffolds. As the direct additive manufacturing approach only enabled the fabrication of 10 w/v% scaffolds [4], we compared this approach with an indirect approach. It was shown that a proper design transfer was realized from PLLA scaffold to gelatin hydrogel, with the latter being self-supporting [3]. Physico-chemical testing revealed scaffold properties (mechanical, degradation, swelling) to depend on the applied gelatin concentration and the methacrylamide content. The scaffolds obtained using both approaches were suitable to support the adhesion and proliferation of HFFs. After 5 days the scaffolds (V = 5*5*5 cm3) were nearly completely covered with viable cells indicating a nice cell proliferation onto the scaffolds (see figure 2). Figure 2: Live/dead fluorescence image obtained of the 5 w/v% scaffold seeded with HFF after 5 days of cell culture (left). Histological evaluation of the 5 w/v% scaffold after 21 days of cell culture (right). Conclusion: Scaffold structural analysis indicated the success of the selected indirect additive manufacturing approach for the production of cell-interactive, low-density (5 w/v %) gelatin scaffolds. Furthermore, the first steps have been realized to develop combination scaffolds containing both 3D printed and electrospun polymer layers in one single 3D construct using the novel in-house developed polymer processing device. Research Foundation Flanders; Ghent University; Vrije Universiteit BrusselReferences:[1] Van Den Bulcke et al. Biomacromolecules (2000)[2] Van Vlierberghe et al. European Polymer Journal (2011)[3] Van Hoorick et al. J Mater Sci: Mater Med (2016)[4] Billiet et al. Biomaterials (2014) Keywords: Tissue Engineering, protein, Rapid prototyping, 3D scaffold Conference: 10th World Biomaterials Congress, Montréal, Canada, 17 May - 22 May, 2016. Presentation Type: Poster Topic: Combinatorial approaches to biomaterial design Citation: Van Hoorick J, Ovsianikov A, Declerq H, Cornelissen M, Van Erps J, Thienpont H, Dubruel P and Van Vlierberghe S (2016). Additive manufacturing of 3D gelatin scaffolds: direct versus indirect printing. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. Conference Abstract: 10th World Biomaterials Congress. doi: 10.3389/conf.FBIOE.2016.01.00425 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 27 Mar 2016; Published Online: 30 Mar 2016. Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Jasper Van Hoorick Aleksandr Ovsianikov Heidi Declerq Maria Cornelissen Jürgen Van Erps Hugo Thienpont Peter Dubruel Sandra Van Vlierberghe Google Jasper Van Hoorick Aleksandr Ovsianikov Heidi Declerq Maria Cornelissen Jürgen Van Erps Hugo Thienpont Peter Dubruel Sandra Van Vlierberghe Google Scholar Jasper Van Hoorick Aleksandr Ovsianikov Heidi Declerq Maria Cornelissen Jürgen Van Erps Hugo Thienpont Peter Dubruel Sandra Van Vlierberghe PubMed Jasper Van Hoorick Aleksandr Ovsianikov Heidi Declerq Maria Cornelissen Jürgen Van Erps Hugo Thienpont Peter Dubruel Sandra Van Vlierberghe Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.