Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility
PurposeThe study conducts a comparative analysis between two prominent methods for fabricating composites for bone scaffolds—the (solid) solvent method and the solvent-free (melting) method. While previous research has explored these methods individually, this study provides a direct comparison of t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1473777/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850048494561132544 |
|---|---|
| author | Brigita De Vega Brigita De Vega Abir Dutta Abir Dutta Aisha Mumtaz Bob C. Schroeder Craig Gerrand Ashleigh S. Boyd Ashleigh S. Boyd Deepak M. Kalaskar Deepak M. Kalaskar |
| author_facet | Brigita De Vega Brigita De Vega Abir Dutta Abir Dutta Aisha Mumtaz Bob C. Schroeder Craig Gerrand Ashleigh S. Boyd Ashleigh S. Boyd Deepak M. Kalaskar Deepak M. Kalaskar |
| author_sort | Brigita De Vega |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | PurposeThe study conducts a comparative analysis between two prominent methods for fabricating composites for bone scaffolds—the (solid) solvent method and the solvent-free (melting) method. While previous research has explored these methods individually, this study provides a direct comparison of their outcomes in terms of physicochemical properties, cytocompatibility, and mechanical strength. We also analyse their workflow and scalability potentials.Design/methodology/approachPolycaprolactone (PCL) and hydroxyapatite (HA) composites were prepared using solvent (chloroform) and melting (180°C) methods, then 3D-printed using an extrusion-based 3D printer to fabricate scaffolds (8 × 8 × 4 mm). Rheology, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), accelerated degradation, mechanical/compression test, wettability/contact angle, live/dead assay, and DNA quantification (Picogreen) assays were evaluated.FindingsThe study finds that scaffolds made via the solid solvent method have higher mechanical strength and degradation rate as compared to those from the melting method, while both methods ensure adequate cytocompatibility and homogenous hydroxyapatite distribution, supporting their use in bone tissue engineering.OriginalityThis research investigates the utility of chloroform as a solvent for PCL composite in a direct comparison with the melting method. It also highlights the differences in workflows between the two methods and their scalability implications, emphasizing the importance of considering workflow efficiency and the potential for automation in scaffold fabrication processes for bone tissue engineering applications. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-121c40bd68344ddfa1acf00c73054bda |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2296-4185 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
| spelling | doaj-art-121c40bd68344ddfa1acf00c73054bda2025-08-20T02:53:56ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology2296-41852025-01-011210.3389/fbioe.2024.14737771473777Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibilityBrigita De Vega0Brigita De Vega1Abir Dutta2Abir Dutta3Aisha Mumtaz4Bob C. Schroeder5Craig Gerrand6Ashleigh S. Boyd7Ashleigh S. Boyd8Deepak M. Kalaskar9Deepak M. Kalaskar10Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital Campus, London, United KingdomInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science (IOMS), Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Stanmore, United KingdomInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science (IOMS), Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Stanmore, United KingdomDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, IndiaDepartment of Chemistry, University College London, London, United KingdomDepartment of Chemistry, University College London, London, United KingdomBone and Soft Tissue Tumour Service, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, United KingdomDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital Campus, London, United KingdomUCL Institute of Immunity and Transplantation, Pears Building, London, United KingdomDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Royal Free Hospital Campus, London, United KingdomInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science (IOMS), Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Stanmore, United KingdomPurposeThe study conducts a comparative analysis between two prominent methods for fabricating composites for bone scaffolds—the (solid) solvent method and the solvent-free (melting) method. While previous research has explored these methods individually, this study provides a direct comparison of their outcomes in terms of physicochemical properties, cytocompatibility, and mechanical strength. We also analyse their workflow and scalability potentials.Design/methodology/approachPolycaprolactone (PCL) and hydroxyapatite (HA) composites were prepared using solvent (chloroform) and melting (180°C) methods, then 3D-printed using an extrusion-based 3D printer to fabricate scaffolds (8 × 8 × 4 mm). Rheology, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), accelerated degradation, mechanical/compression test, wettability/contact angle, live/dead assay, and DNA quantification (Picogreen) assays were evaluated.FindingsThe study finds that scaffolds made via the solid solvent method have higher mechanical strength and degradation rate as compared to those from the melting method, while both methods ensure adequate cytocompatibility and homogenous hydroxyapatite distribution, supporting their use in bone tissue engineering.OriginalityThis research investigates the utility of chloroform as a solvent for PCL composite in a direct comparison with the melting method. It also highlights the differences in workflows between the two methods and their scalability implications, emphasizing the importance of considering workflow efficiency and the potential for automation in scaffold fabrication processes for bone tissue engineering applications.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1473777/fullcompositebone scaffold3D printingadditive manufacturingpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatite |
| spellingShingle | Brigita De Vega Brigita De Vega Abir Dutta Abir Dutta Aisha Mumtaz Bob C. Schroeder Craig Gerrand Ashleigh S. Boyd Ashleigh S. Boyd Deepak M. Kalaskar Deepak M. Kalaskar Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology composite bone scaffold 3D printing additive manufacturing polycaprolactone hydroxyapatite |
| title | Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility |
| title_full | Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility |
| title_fullStr | Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility |
| title_short | Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of solvent based and solvent free melting methods for fabricating 3d printed polycaprolactone hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds physicochemical mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility |
| topic | composite bone scaffold 3D printing additive manufacturing polycaprolactone hydroxyapatite |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1473777/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT brigitadevega comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT brigitadevega comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT abirdutta comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT abirdutta comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT aishamumtaz comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT bobcschroeder comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT craiggerrand comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT ashleighsboyd comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT ashleighsboyd comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT deepakmkalaskar comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility AT deepakmkalaskar comparativeanalysisofsolventbasedandsolventfreemeltingmethodsforfabricating3dprintedpolycaprolactonehydroxyapatitecompositebonescaffoldsphysicochemicalmechanicalanalysesandinvitrocytocompatibility |