Page 334 - IJB-10-1
P. 334

International Journal of Bioprinting                            3D-printed bone scaffolds and biofilm formation




            with antibacterial properties remains unexplored. This study   shown in Figure 1, were considered in this study, including
            aims to assess this impact in terms of scaffold geometry and   one reference design (RD), three TPMS designs, and one
            porosity on the formation of bacterial biofilm.    auxetic design. Each design is divided into two sub-designs

               To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first   with different levels of porosity (A: high porosity and B:
            to provide insight regarding bacterial biofilm formation   low porosity). Porosity was calculated with Equation I:
            on  different  geometries  of  TPMS  and  auxetic  meta-         V     
            materials 3D-printed PLA bone scaffolds. As reference   Porosity =  1−  scaffold   × 100%    (I)
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                                    
            design, scaffolds with continuous 0–90° grid pattern were         V Block  
            compared to TPMS and auxetic scaffolds. Moreover, the   A block with an outer dimension of 10 mm × 10 mm
            scaffold for each design was investigated at two different   × 5 mm was used for all scaffold designs. The computer-
            porosities of 45% and 75%. Fused filament fabrication, a   aided design (CAD) model of RD was drawn using
            material extrusion AM technique, was used to 3D-print   Solidworks (SolidWorks Crop., Dassault Systèmes,
            the scaffolds. To examine bacterial attachment and biofilm   Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) consisting of a continuous
            formation, the printed scaffolds were seeded with the   0–90° grid pattern, a 330 µm strut dimension, and a
            Staphylococcus aureus. The biofilm was quantified using   spacing of 900 µm and 530 µm for the 68% and 46%
            crystal violet assay and visualized using scanning electron   porosity scaffolds, respectively.  TPMS scaffold designs
                                                                                        2,21
            microscopy (SEM). Additionally, the microstructure   were developed in nTopology software (nTopology, New
            and surface characteristics of the printed scaffolds were   York, USA,  www.ntopology.com) by employing Fourier
            examined via SEM and surface roughness test, respectively.   transform equations. It combines trigonometric equations
                                                               which are defined by Φ(x,y,z) = c, where Φ is the minimum
            2. Materials and methods                           surface complete formula and c is the offset parameter (c
            2.1. Scaffold designing                            = 0 for a single unit cell). 31,32  The precise functions used in
            The parameters of this study are the scaffold geometrical   the software to generate the considered TPMS structures
            design and the porosity. Five different scaffold designs, as   in this study are defined in Table 1.

            Table 1. Shape and equation of TPMS structures

             Cell shape                  Type                       Equation
                                         Schwarz primitive (SP)     cos( )x + cos()y +  cos( )z = c









                                         Gyroid (GY)                sin( )cos()x  y + sin( )cos()y  z + sin( )cos()z  x = c










                                         Schwarz diamond (SD)       sin( )sin() sin( )x  y  z + sin() cos( )cos()x  y  z +  cos( )sin() cos( )x  y  z + coos() cos( )sin()x  y  z =  c

                                 sin( )sin() sin( )x  y  z + sin() cos( )cos()x  y  z +  cos( )sin() cos( )x  y  z + coos() cos( )sin()x  y  z =  c










            Volume 10 Issue 1 (2024)                       326                          https://doi.org/10.36922/ijb.1768
   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339