Advertisement

3-D printing of chitosan-calcium phosphate inks: rheology, interactions and characterization

  • Silvia Stella Ramirez Caballero
  • Eduardo Saiz
  • Alexandra MontembaultEmail author
  • Solène Tadier
  • Eric Maire
  • Laurent David
  • Thierry Delair
  • Laurent GrémillardEmail author
Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization Original Research
  • 86 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization

Abstract

Bone substitute fabrication is of interest to meet the worldwide incidence of bone disorders. Physical chitosan hydrogels with intertwined apatite particles were chosen to meet the bio-physical and mechanical properties required by a potential bone substitute. A set up for 3-D printing by robocasting was found adequate to fabricate scaffolds. Inks consisted of suspensions of calcium phosphate particles in chitosan acidic aqueous solution. The inks are shear-thinning and consist of a suspension of dispersed platelet aggregates of dicalcium phosphate dihydrate in a continuous chitosan phase. The rheological properties of the inks were studied, including their shear-thinning characteristics and yield stress. Scaffolds were printed in basic water/ethanol baths to induce transformation of chitosan-calcium phosphates suspension into physical hydrogel of chitosan mineralized with apatite. Scaffolds consisted of a chitosan polymeric matrix intertwined with poorly crystalline apatite particles. Results indicate that ink rheological properties could be tuned by controlling ink composition: in particular, more printable inks are obtained with higher chitosan concentration (0.19 mol·L−1).

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the JECS Trust for funding (Contract No. 2015101). This work was also supported by the LABEX iMUST (ANR-10-LABX-0064) of Université de Lyon, within the program “Investissements d’Avenir” (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) operated by the French National Research Agency (ANR). The authors also are grateful to the staff in the Centre of Advanced Structural Ceramics at Imperial College London for the collaboration work. Special thanks to Ezra Feilden and Esther García-Tuñon Blanca for the Robocasting machine training.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;40(5):363–408.  https://doi.org/10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v40.i5.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vallet-Regi M. Bio-ceramics with clinical applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Philippart A, Boccaccini AR, Fleck C, Schubert DW, Roether JA. Toughening and functionalization of bioactive ceramic and glass bone scaffolds by biopolymer coatings and infiltration: a review of the last 5 years. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(1):93–111.  https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2015.958075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martínez-Vázquez FJ, Perera FH, Miranda P, Pajares A, Guiberteau F. Improving the compressive strength of bioceramic robocast scaffolds by polymer infiltration. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(11):4361–4368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.05.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peroglio M, Gremillard L, Chevalier J, Chazeau L, Gauthier C, Hamaide T. Toughening of bio-ceramics scaffolds by polymer coating. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2007;27(7):2679–2685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2006.10.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miao X, Lim WK, Huang X, Chen Y. Preparation and characterization of interpenetrating phased TCP/HA/PLGA composites. Mater Lett. 2005;59(29):4000–4005.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2005.07.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Komlev VS, Barinov SM, Rustichelli F. Strength enhancement of porous hydroxyapatite ceramics by polymer impregnation. J Mater Sci Lett. 2003;22(17):1215–1217.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025300617681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miao X, Tan DM, Li J, Xiao Y, Crawford R. Mechanical and biological properties of hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate scaffolds coated with poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid). Acta Biomater. 2008;4(3):638–645.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peroglio M, Gremillard L, Gauthier C, Chazeau L, Verrier S, Alini M, Chevalier J. Mechanical properties and cytocompatibility of poly(ε-caprolactone)-infiltrated biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds with bimodal pore distribution. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(11):4369–4379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.05.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mano JF, Sousa RA, Boesel LF, Neves NM, Reis RLBioinert. biodegradable and injectable polymeric matrix composites for hard tissue replacement: state of the art and recent developments. Compos Sci Technol. 2004;64(6):789–817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2003.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murugan R, Kumar TSS, Yang F, Ramakrishna S. Hydroxyl carbonateapatite hybrid bone composites using carbohydrate polymer. J Compos Mater. 2005;39(13):1159–1167.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998305048745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kong L, Gao Y, Lu G, Gong Y, Zhao N, Zhang X. A study on the bioactivity of chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Eur Polym J. 2006;42(12):3171–3179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2006.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pighinelli L, Kucharska M. Chitosan–hydroxyapatite composites. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;93(1):256–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ladet SG, Tahiri K, Montembault AS, Domard AJ, Corvol MTM. Multi-membrane chitosan hydrogels as chondrocytic cell bioreactors. Biomaterials. 2011;32(23):5354–5364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chedly J, Soares S, Montembault A, Von Boxberg Y, Veron-Ravaille M, Mouffle C, Nothias F. Physical chitosan microhydrogels as scaffolds for spinal cord injury restoration and axon regeneration. Biomaterials. 2017;138:91–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.05.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shi C, Zhu Y, Ran X, Wang M, Su Y, Cheng T. Therapeutic potential of chitosan and its derivatives in regenerative medicine. J Surg Res. 2006;133(2):185–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2005.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim IY, Seo SJ, Moon HS, Yoo MK, Park IY, Kim BC, Cho CS. Chitosan and its derivatives for tissue engineering applications. Biotechnol Adv. 2008;26(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    VandeVord PJ, Matthew HWT, DeSilva SP, Mayton L, Wu B, Wooley PH. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of a chitosan scaffold in mice. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;59(3):585–590.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Francis Suh JK, Matthew HWT. Application of chitosan-based polysaccharide biomaterials in cartilage tissue engineering: a review. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2589–2598.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00126-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dutta PK. Chitin and chitosan for regenerative medicine. New Delhi: Springer India; 2016. P. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2511-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dash M, Chiellini F, Ottenbrite RM, Chiellini E. Chitosan—A versatile semi-synthetic polymer in biomedical applications. Progress Polym Sci. 2011;36(8):981–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hench LL, Polak JM. Third-generation biomedical materials. Science. 2002;295(5557):1014–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ducheyne P, Qiu Q. Bioactive ceramics: the effect of surface reactivity on bone formation and bone cell function. Biomaterials. 1999;20(23):2287–2303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00181-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peniche C, Solís Y, Davidenko N, García R. Chitosan/hydroxyapatite-based composites. Biotecnol Apl. 2010;27(3):202–210.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bose S, Vahabzadeh S, Bandyopadhyay A. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Mater Today. 2013;16(12):496–504.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smay JE, Cesarano J, Lewis JA. Colloidal inks for directed assembly of 3-D periodic structures. Langmuir. 2002;18(14):5429–5437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munch E, Franco J, Deville S, Hunger P, Saiz E, Tomsia AP. Porous ceramic scaffolds with complex architectures. JOM. 2008;60(6):54–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-008-0072-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Franco J, Hunger P, Launey ME, Tomsia AP, Saiz E. Direct write assembly of calcium phosphate scaffolds using a water-based hydrogel. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(1):218–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.06.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Billiet T, Vandenhaute M, Schelfhout J, Van Vlierberghe S, Dubruel P. A review of trends and limitations in hydrogel-rapid prototyping for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2012;33(26):6020–6041.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.04.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M’Barki A, Bocquet L, Stevenson A. Linking rheology and printability for dense and strong ceramics by direct ink writing. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):6017  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06115-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ang TH, Sultana FSA, Hutmacher DW, Wong YS, Fuh JYH, Mo XM, Teoh SH. Fabrication of 3D chitosan–hydroxyapatite scaffolds using a robotic dispensing system. Mater Sci Eng: C. 2002;20(1):35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-4931(02)00010-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fedotov AY, Egorov AA, Zobkov YV, Mironov AV, Popov VK, Barinov SM, Komlev VS. 3D printing of mineral-polymer structures based on calcium phosphate and polysaccharides for tissue engineering. Inorg Mater: Appl Res. 2016;7(2):240–243.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S207511331602009X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cho J, Heuzey MC, Bégin A, Carreau PJ. Viscoelastic properties of chitosan solutions: Effect of concentration and ionic strength. J Food Eng. 2006;74(4):500–515.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Varma AJ, Deshpande SV, Kennedy JF. Metal complexation by chitosan and its derivatives: a review. Carbohydr Polym. 2004;55(1):77–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2003.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fadeeva IV, Barinov SM, Fedotov AY, Komlev VS. Interactions of calcium phosphates with chitosan. Dokl Chem. 2011;441(2):387–390.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0012500811120044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wan Y, Creber KAM, Peppley B, Bui VT. Synthesis, characterization and ionic conductive properties of phosphorylated chitosan membranes. Macromol Chem Phys. 2003;204(5–6):850–858.  https://doi.org/10.1002/macp.200390056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Montembault A, Viton C, Domard A. Rheometric study of the gelation of chitosan in aqueous solution without cross-linking agent. Biomacromolecules. 2005;6(2):653–662.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm049593m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Venault A, Bouyer D, Pochat-Bohatier C, Vachoud L, Faur C. Investigation of chitosan gelation mechanisms by a modeling approach coupled to local experimental measurement. AIChE J. 2012;58(7):2226–2240.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.12737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Franck AJ. Understanding rheology of structured fluids. Book of TA instruments, 1–17, 2004. http://www.tainstruments.com/pdf/literature/AAN016_V1_U_StructFluids.pdf.
  40. 40.
    Feilden E, Garcia-Tunon Blanca E, Giuliani F, Saiz E, Vandeperre L. Robocasting of structural ceramic parts with hydrogel inks. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2016;36(10):2525–2533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2016.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dorozhkin SV. Calcium orthophosphates as bioceramics: state of the art. J Funct Biomater. 2010;1(1):22–107.  https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb1010022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mekmene O, Quillard S, Rouillon T, Bouler JM, Piot M, Gaucheron F. Effects of pH and Ca/P molar ratio on the quantity and crystalline structure of calcium phosphates obtained from aqueous solutions. Dairy Sci & Technol. 2009;89(3–4):301–316.  https://doi.org/10.1051/dst/2009019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nilsen-Nygaard J, Strand SP, Vårum KM, Draget KI, Nordgård CT. Chitosan: gels and interfacial properties. Polymers. 2015;7:552–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Calero N, Muñoz J, Ramírez P, Guerrero A. Flow behaviour, linear viscoelasticity and surface properties of chitosan aqueous solutions. Food Hydrocoll. 2010;24(6):659–666.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Desbrieres J. Viscosity of semiflexible chitosan solutions: influence of concentration, temperature, and role of intermolecular interactions. Biomacromolecules. 2002;3(2):342–349.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm010151+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Desorme M, Montembault A, Lucas JM, Rochas C, Bouet T, David L. Spinning of hydroalcoholic chitosan solutions. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;98(1):50–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.04.070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ Lyon, INSA LyonMATEIS UMR CNRS 5510, Bât. Blaise PascalVilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Ingénierie des Matériaux Polymères, IMP@Lyon1VilleurbanneFrance
  3. 3.Centre of Advanced Structural Ceramics, Department of MaterialsImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations