Page 343 - IJB-10-1
P. 343

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




            Table 3. A summary of all scaffold designs
                        Level of biofilm                                             Design
             Scaffold   formation of   Porosity and pore   Surface roughness
             design                  size
                        S. aureus a                                    75% Porosity (A)      45% Porosity (B)



                        Least level of
             SP         bacterial biofilm
                        formation
                                                    Higher surface
                                     Higher porosity/  roughness leads
                                     pore size produces   to more bacterial
                                     greater bacterial   biofilm formation;
                                     biofilm formation  no significant
                                                    observation
             GY         Uneventful








                        Greatest level of
             SD         bacterial biofilm           No significant
                                                    results
                        formation
                                     Lower porosity/
                                     pore size produces
                                     greater bacterial
                                     biofilm formation  Higher surface
                                                    roughness results
                                                    in less bacterial
             RE         Uneventful
                                                    biofilm formation;
                                                    no significant
                                                    observation

            a Evaluated with crystal violet assay (OD )
                                     630
            scaffold 2.03 ± 0.04 and 1.6 ± 1.6 mm, SD scaffold 1.57 ±   may provide better outcomes than the current reference
            0.03 and 1.10 ± 0.11 mm, and RE scaffold 1.51 ± 0.03 and   scaffold designs. Following this research, we anticipate
            0.84 ± 0.09 mm, respectively.                      that new designs capable of reducing biofilm formation
                                                               will be devised and investigated. Other than  S. aureus,
               Our findings showed that the SP scaffold of low porosity
            produced the least bacterial biofilm, indicating that it is the   it is worth investigating the impact of different bacterial
                                                               strains on tissue engineering scaffolds. In future, we plan
            best design among the scaffolds being studied. However,   to study comparable scaffold designs with the objective
            the SP scaffold has a relatively high surface roughness,   of optimizing cell proliferation and adhesion, as the
            which may not only influence the cell growth but also   subsequent step of determining the most suitable bone
            the bacterial growth. The large pore size of SP scaffold   scaffold design.
            (i.e., SP-A) may contribute to the reduced cell migration
            and attachment, but the small pore size version (i.e., SP-  Acknowledgments
            B) displays an opposite effect. Further optimization of the
            manufacturing processes of complex shapes is necessary   The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship
            to minimize the risk of bacterial biofilm formation. In   for Research & Innovation, “Ministry of Education” in
            conclusion, this study presents that it is possible to tailor   Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the
            the porosities/pore size of TPMS and RE structures, which   project number (IFKSUDR_P102).


            Volume 10 Issue 1 (2024)                       335                          https://doi.org/10.36922/ijb.1768
   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348