Advertisement

Synthesis, characterization, and bioactivity investigation of biomimetic biodegradable PLA scaffold fabricated by fused filament fabrication process

  • Daljeet Singh
  • Atul BabbarEmail author
  • Vivek Jain
  • Dheeraj Gupta
  • Sanjai Saxena
  • Vagish Dwibedi
Technical Paper
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Nowadays polylactic acid (PLA) is widely used in orthopedics surgeries as implants material due to well mechanical characterization and biomedical properties. But the PLA implants suffer from slow degradation rate when it is used in real-life scenario. In the present research work, the PLA specimens using additive manufacturing technique are fabricated and further assessed for mechanical characterization and its degradation behavior with different parameters. The change in weight of scaffolds was measured using digital weight measure, and pH value was measured using pH meter. Morphology and elemental composition of PLA scaffolds were characterized by SEM and EDS, respectively, while compressive strength is measured by the universal testing machine. Apatite formation and biocompatible nature of fabricated scaffolds were analyzed by in vitro simulated body fluid study. The outcomes of characterization exposed that scaffold with 60% infill percentage had maximum porosity, which is beneficial for the apatite formation and osseointegration. The average change in compressive strength was measured as 49.79 MPa after 14 days and 46.11 MPa after 28 days, whereas the average change in pH value was measured as 5.67 and 5.27 after 14 and 28 days of incubation period, respectively. The degradation rate of specimen 3 was 27.92% less than that of specimen 1, 35.69% less than that of specimen 5, and 87.98% more than that of specimen 9. This study concludes the positive effect of process parameters on degradation rate and biocompatible behavior of PLA implants.

Keywords

Polylactic acid Additive manufacturing Simulated body fluid Scaffolds Degradation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no potential conflict of interest among all authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Gershlak JR, Hernandez S, Fontana G et al (2017) Crossing kingdoms: using decellularized plants as perfusable tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hasan A, Memic A, Annabi N et al (2014) Electrospun scaffolds for tissue engineering of vascular grafts. Acta Biomater 10(1):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins MN, Birkinshaw C (2013) Hyaluronic acid based scaffolds for tissue engineering—a review. Carbohydr Polym 92(2):1262–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stratton S, Shelke NB, Hoshino K et al (2016) Bioactive polymeric scaffolds for tissue engineering. Bioact Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2016.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh S, Singh R (2017) Some investigations on surface roughness of aluminium metal composite primed by fused deposition modeling-assisted investment casting using reinforced filament. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39:471–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0524-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magalhães LC, Volpato N, Luersen MA (2014) Evaluation of stiffness and strength in fused deposition sandwich specimens. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 36:449–459.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-013-0111-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Valipour P, Ghasemi SE (2016) Erratum to: Numerical investigation of MHD water-based nanofluids flow in porous medium caused by shrinking permeable sheet (J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., (2016), 38, (859–868), 10.1007/s40430-014-0303-3). J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 38:2189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh S, Ramakrishna S (2017) Biomedical applications of additive manufacturing: present and future. Curr Opin Biomed Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2017.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salim S, Ariani MD (2015) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of carbonate apatite-collagen scaffolds with some cytokines for bone tissue engineering. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 15(4):349–355.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.171821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sobral JM, Caridade SG, Sousa RA et al (2011) Three-dimensional plotted scaffolds with controlled pore size gradients: effect of scaffold geometry on mechanical performance and cell seeding efficiency. Acta Biomater.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guan J, Fujimoto KL, Sacks MS, Wagner WR (2005) Preparation and characterization of highly porous, biodegradable polyurethane scaffolds for soft tissue applications. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Do A-V, Khorsand B, Geary SM, Salem AK (2015) 3D printing of scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. Adv Healthc Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201500168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Croisier F, Jérôme C (2013) Chitosan-based biomaterials for tissue engineering. Eur Polym J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2012.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chacón JM, Caminero MA, García-Plaza E, Núñez PJ (2017) Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Mater Des 124:143–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Revati R, Abdul Majid MS, Ridzuan MJM, Normahira M, Nasir NFM, Cheng EM (2017) Biodegradation of PLA-Pennisetum purpureum based biocomposite scaffold. J Phys Conf Ser Pap 908(1):012029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hokmabad VR, Davaran S, Ramazani A (2017) Design and fabrication of porous biodegradable scaffolds: a strategy for tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2017.1354674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wurm MC, Möst T, Bergauer B et al (2017) In-vitro evaluation of polylactic acid (PLA) manufactured by fused deposition modeling. J Biol Eng 11(1):29.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-017-0073-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamazza L, Garreffa G, Laurito D et al (2016) Temperature values variability in piezoelectric implant site preparation: differences between cortical and corticocancellous bovine bone. Biomed Res Int.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6473680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Józwik J, Ostrowski D, Milczarczyk R, Krolczyk GM (2018) Analysis of relation between the 3D printer laser beam power and the surface morphology properties in Ti–6Al–4 V titanium alloy parts. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1144-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Modi YK, Sanadhya S (2018) Design and additive manufacturing of patient-specific cranial and pelvic bone implants from computed tomography data. J Brazilian Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1425-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aherwar A, Singh A, Patnaik A (2018) A study on mechanical behavior and wear performance of a metal–metal Co–30Cr biomedical alloy with different molybdenum addition and optimized using Taguchi experimental design. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:213.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1107-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basavaraj CK, Vishwas M (2016) Studies on effect of fused deposition modelling process parameters on ultimate tensile strength and dimensional accuracy of nylon. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineeringGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang MO, Piard CM, Melchiorri A et al (2015) Evaluating changes in structure and cytotoxicity during in vitro degradation of three-dimensional printed scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao C, Wu H, Ni J et al (2017) Development of PLA/Mg composite for orthopedic implant: tunable degradation and enhanced mineralization. Compos Sci Technol 147:8–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2017.04.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4(7):518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu H, Madbouly SA, Schrader JA et al (2014) Biodegradation behavior of poly(lactic acid) (PLA)/distiller’ s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) composites. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2:2699–2706.  https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500440q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raquez JM, Habibi Y, Murariu M, Dubois P (2013) Polylactide (PLA)-based nanocomposites. Prog Polym Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2013.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamad K, Kaseem M, Yang HW et al (2015) Properties and medical applications of polylactic acid: a review. Express Polym Lett.  https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2015.42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lasprilla AJR, Martinez GAR, Lunelli BH et al (2012) Poly-lactic acid synthesis for application in biomedical devices—a review. Biotechnol Adv 30(1):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suryanegara L, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2009) The effect of crystallization of PLA on the thermal and mechanical properties of microfibrillated cellulose-reinforced PLA composites. Compos Sci Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Inkinen S, Hakkarainen M, Albertsson AC, Södergård A (2011) From lactic acid to poly(lactic acid) (PLA): characterization and analysis of PLA and its precursors. Biomacromolecules 12(3):523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R (2016) Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications—a comprehensive review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:367–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zein I, Hutmacher DW, Tan KC, Teoh SH (2002) Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00232-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wei G, Ma PX (2004) Structure and properties of nano-hydroxyapatite/polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pham QP, Sharma U, Mikos AG (2006) Electrospun poly(ε-caprolactone) microfiber and multilayer nanofiber/microfiber scaffolds: characterization of scaffolds and measurement of cellular infiltration. Biomacromolecules.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm060680j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ghasemi-Mobarakeh L (2015) Structural properties of scaffolds: crucial parameters towards stem cells differentiation. World J Stem Cells.  https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v7.i4.728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Ciurana J, Serenó L, Vallès È (2013) Selecting process parameters in RepRap additive manufacturing system for PLA scaffolds manufacture. In: Procedia CIRPGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Vlierberghe S, Dubruel P, Schacht E (2011) Biopolymer-based hydrogels as scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: a review. Biomacromolecules 12(5):1387–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baker BM, Gee AO, Metter RB et al (2008) The potential to improve cell infiltration in composite fiber-aligned electrospun scaffolds by the selective removal of sacrificial fibers. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chang HI, Wang Y (2011) Cell responses to surface and architecture of tissue engineering scaffolds. In: Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering-cells and biomaterials. InTech, Croatia.  https://doi.org/10.5772/21983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Inzana JA, Olvera D, Fuller SM et al (2014) 3D printing of composite calcium phosphate and collagen scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haugh MG, Murphy CM, McKiernan RC et al (2011) Crosslinking and mechanical properties significantly influence cell attachment, proliferation, and migration within collagen glycosaminoglycan scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Singh BN, Pramanik K (2018) Generation of bioactive nano-composite scaffold of nanobioglass/silk fibroin/carboxymethyl cellulose for bone tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 29(16):2011–2034.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2018.1523525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu H, Webster TJ (2006) Less harmful acidic degradation of poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) bone tissue engineering scaffolds through titania nanoparticle addition. Int J Nanomed 1(4):541–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang JF, Sun X (2004) Mechanical properties of poly(lactic acid)/starch composites compatibilized by maleic anhydride. Biomacromolecules.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm0400022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oyane A, Kim HM, Furuya T et al (2003) Preparation and assessment of revised simulated body fluids. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.10482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sung H-J, Meredith C, Johnson C, Galis ZS (2004) The effect of scaffold degradation rate on three-dimensional cell growth and angiogenesis. Biomaterials.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThapar Institute of Engineering and TechnologyPatialaIndia
  2. 2.Department of BiotechnologyThapar Institute of Engineering and TechnologyPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations