Advertisement

3D bioprinting of alginate scaffolds with controlled micropores by leaching of recrystallized salts

  • Xiaoyue Wei
  • Yongxiang LuoEmail author
  • Peng Huang
Original Paper

Abstract

It is well known that three-dimensional scaffolds with controlled macropores and micropores are crucially important for tissue engineering. In the present study, a facile method based on leaching of recrystallized sodium chloride (NaCl) is used to create micropores in 3D printed alginate scaffolds. The macropores with size of 811 ± 78 µm were controlled by 3D printing, and the micropores with size of 3.2 ± 1.4 µm were produced by leaching of the recrystallized NaCl particles. The microporosity can be controlled by the added amount of sodium ions in the alginate inks. The properties of scaffolds including water adsorption, protein delivery and mechanical properties were tailored by the produced micropores. This simple and cell-friendly method might be interesting for 3D bioprinting of tissue engineering scaffolds with designed physical characteristics using alginate-based hydrogel bioinks.

Keywords

Alginate scaffolds 3D printing Bioinks Micropores 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81741107), Basic Research Program of Shenzhen (Grant Nos. JCYJ20170817094407954), Taipei University of Technology—Shenzhen University Joint Research Program (Grant No. 2018005) were granted.

References

  1. 1.
    Pettignano A, Grijalvo S, Häring M, Eritja R, Tanchoux N, Quignard F, Díaz DD (2017) Boronic acid-modified alginate enables direct formation of injectable, self-healing and multistimuli-responsive hydrogels. Chem Commun 53(23):3350–3353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sood A, Arora V, Shah J, Kotnala RK, Jain TK (2017) Multifunctional gold coated iron oxide core-shell nanoparticles stabilized using thiolated sodium alginate for biomedical applications. Mate Sci Eng C 80:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruvinov E, Cohen S (2016) Alginate biomaterial for the treatment of myocardial infarction: progress, translational strategies, and clinical outlook: from ocean algae to patient bedside. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 96:54–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poonguzhali R, Basha SK, Kumari VS (2018) Synthesis of alginate/nanocellulose bionanocomposite for in vitro delivery of ampicillin. Polym Bull 75:4165–4173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim H, Park H, Lee JW, Lee KY (2016) Magnetic field-responsive release of transforming growth factor beta 1 from heparin-modified alginate ferrogels. Carbohydr Polym 151:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Summa M, Russo D, Penna I, Margaroli N, Bayer IS, Bandiera T, Bertorelli R (2018) A biocompatible sodium alginate/povidone iodine film enhances wound healing. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 122:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li M, Li H, Li X, Zhu H, Xu Z, Liu L, Zhang M (2017) A bioinspired alginate-gum arabic hydrogel with micro-/nanoscale structures for controlled drug release in chronic wound healing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(27):22160–22175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reakasame S, Boccaccini AR (2017) Oxidized alginate-based hydrogels for tissue engineering applications: a review. Biomacromol 19(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo Y, Lode A, Wu C, Chang J, Gelinsky M (2015) Alginate/nanohydroxyapatite scaffolds with designed core/shell structures fabricated by 3D plotting and in situ mineralization for bone tissue engineering. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7(12):541–6549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markstedt K, Mantas A, Tournier I, Martínez Ávila H, Hägg D, Gatenholm P (2015) 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose–alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromol 16(5):1489–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao Q, He Y, Fu JZ, Liu A, Ma L (2015) Coaxial nozzle-assisted 3D bioprinting with built-in microchannels for nutrients delivery. Biomaterials 61:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Athirasala A, Tahayeri A, Thrivikraman G, Franca CM, Monteiro N, Tran V, Bertassoni LE (2018) A dentin-derived hydrogel bioink for 3D bioprinting of cell laden scaffolds for regenerative dentistry. Biofabrication 10(2):024101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Axpe E, Oyen ML (2016) Applications of alginate-based bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Int J Mol Sci 17(12):1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lou T, Wang X, Yan X, Miao Y, Long YZ, Yin HL, Song G (2016) Fabrication and biocompatibility of poly (l-lactic acid) and chitosan composite scaffolds with hierarchical microstructures. Mate Sci Eng C 64:341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chu L, Jiang G, Hu XL, James TD, He XP, Li Y, Tang T (2018) Biodegradable macroporous scaffold with nano-crystal surface microstructure for highly effective osteogenesis and vascularization. J Mater Chem B 6(11):1658–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang K, Wang X, Han C, Hou W, Wang J, Chen L, Luo Y (2017) From micro to macro: the hierarchical design in a micropatterned scaffold for cell assembling and transplantation. Adv Mater 29(2):1604600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osmond M, Bernier SM, Pantcheva MB, Krebs MD (2017) Collagen and collagen-chondroitin sulfate scaffolds with uniaxially aligned pores for the biomimetic, three dimensional culture of trabecular meshwork cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 114(4):915–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loh QL, Choong C (2013) Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng B Rev 19(6):485–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luo Y, Luo G, Gelinsky M, Huang P, Ruan C (2017) 3D bioprinting scaffold using alginate/polyvinyl alcohol bioinks. Mater Lett 189:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perez RA, Mestres G (2016) Role of pore size and morphology in musculo-skeletal tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C 61:922–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohanty S, Sanger K, Heiskanen A, Trifol J, Szabo P, Dufva M, Wolff A (2016) Fabrication of scalable tissue engineering scaffolds with dual-pore microarchitecture by combining 3D printing and particle leaching. Mater Sci Eng C 61:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo Y, Lode A, Akkineni AR, Gelinsky M (2015) Concentrated gelatin/alginate composites for fabrication of predesigned scaffolds with a favorable cell response by 3D plotting. RSC ADV 5(54):43480–43488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park HJ, Lee OJ, Lee MC, Moon BM, Ju HW, Lee MJ, Park CH (2015) Fabrication of 3D porous silk scaffolds by particulate (salt/sucrose) leaching for bone tissue reconstruction. Int J Biol Macromol 78:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nasri-Nasrabadi B, Mehrasa M, Rafienia M, Bonakdar S, Behzad T, Gavanji S (2014) Porous starch/cellulose nanofibers composite prepared by salt leaching technique for tissue engineering. Carbohydr Polym 108:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thadavirul N, Pavasant P, Supaphol P (2014) Development of polycaprolactone porous scaffolds by combining solvent casting, particulate leaching, and polymer leaching techniques for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 102(10):3379–3392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luo Y, Wu C, Lode A, Gelinsky M (2013) Hierarchical mesoporous bioactive glass/alginate composite scaffolds fabricated by three-dimensional plotting for bone tissue engineering. Biofabrication 5(1):015005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee KY, Mooney DJ (2012) Alginate: properties and biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci 37(1):106–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yan LP, Oliveira JM, Oliveira AL, Caridade SG, Mano JF, Reis RL (2012) Macro/microporous silk fibroin scaffolds with potential for articular cartilage and meniscus tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater 8(1):289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan XP, Tan YJ, Chow CSL, Tor SB, Yeong WY (2017) Metallic powder-bed based 3D printing of cellular scaffolds for orthopaedic implants: a state-of-the-art review on manufacturing, topological design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Mater Sci Eng C 76:1328–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chung JJ, Li S, Stevens MM, Georgiou TK, Jones JR (2016) Tailoring mechanical properties of sol–gel hybrids for bone regeneration through polymer structure. Chem Mater 28(17):6127–6135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sun H, Zhu F, Hu Q, Krebsbach PH (2014) Controlling stem cell-mediated bone regeneration through tailored mechanical properties of collagen scaffolds. Biomaterials 35(4):1176–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee C, Shin J, Lee JS, Byun E, Ryu JH, Um SH, Cho SW (2013) Bioinspired, calcium-free alginate hydrogels with tunable physical and mechanical properties and improved biocompatibility. Biomacromol 14(6):2004–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Song SJ, Choi J, Park YD, Hong S, Lee JJ, Ahn CB, Sun K (2011) Sodium alginate hydrogel-based bioprinting using a novel multinozzle bioprinting system. Artif Organs 35(11):1132–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Akkineni AR, Luo Y, Schumacher M, Nies B, Lode A, Gelinsky M (2015) 3D plotting of growth factor loaded calcium phosphate cement scaffolds. Acta Biomater 27:264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hung KC, Tseng CS, Dai LG, Hsu SH (2016) Water-based polyurethane 3D printed scaffolds with controlled release function for customized cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 83:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Park JY, Shim JH, Choi SA, Jang J, Kim M, Lee SH, Cho DW (2015) 3D printing technology to control BMP-2 and VEGF delivery spatially and temporally to promote large-volume bone regeneration. J Mater Chem B 3:5415–5425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fahimipour F, Rasoulianboroujeni M, Dashtimoghadam E, Khoshroo K, Tahriri M, Bastami F, Lobner D, Tayebi L (2017) 3D printed TCP-based scaffold incorporating VEGF-loaded PLGA microspheres for craniofacial tissue engineering. Dent Mater 33:1205–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Poldervaart MT, Gremmels H, Van Deventer K, Fledderus JO, Öner FC, Verhaar MC, Dhert WJA, Alblas J (2014) Prolonged presence of VEGF promotes vascularization in 3D bioprinted scaffolds with defined architecture. J Control Release 184:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangdong Key Laboratory for Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science CenterShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations