Page 447 - IJB-10-1
P. 447

International Journal of Bioprinting                                Bioactive scaffold for necrosis bone repair




            scaffolds, and the characteristic functional groups of   like structure and could maintain excellent compressive
            biotin could be found in the FTIR spectra. Since the   strength and drug release properties.
            biotin  was  incorporated  in  trace  amounts,  there  was
            almost no difference between the FTIR spectra of these   3.2. In vitro evaluation of biocompatibility and
            scaffolds. Subsequently,  Figure 2B–D  suggested that   osteogenic properties of scaffold
            the doping of biotin did not affect the porosity, pore   Excellent biocompatibility of scaffold is a prerequisite
                                                                                                 29,30
            size, and filament diameter of the scaffold and that the   for subsequent in vivo use of the scaffold.   The results
                                                               of Live/Dead staining (Figure 3A) suggested that the
            printed scaffold uniformly resembles the bionic structure   rBMSCs proliferated well after 24 h and 72 h, and there
            of cancellous bone, facilitating bone ingrowth.  The   were fewer dead cells (red) in all groups. CCK8 test (Figure
                                                     28
            compressive test (Figure 2E) showed that all scaffolds   3B) yielded consistent results, indicating that biotin was
            had cancellous bone-like compressive strength at the   non-cytotoxic  and  did  not  affect  cell  proliferation.  The
            initial state, which decreased to varying degrees with   adhesion of rBMSCs to the scaffold and the promotion of
            increasing immersion time in simulated body fluid. The   osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs by the scaffold were
            HBPT scaffold maintained the best compressive strength   subsequently observed in the co-culture of the scaffold
            at week 8 due to the higher incorporation of biotin, and   with  rBMSCs. The ALP staining (Figure 3C) showed
            all scaffolds showed mass loss with increasing immersion   that all the biotin-doped scaffolds had better osteogenic
            time (Figure 2F), but there was no significant difference   effect than the normal scaffolds, with a larger area of
            overall. Figure 2G shows that the release of biotin in the   ALP-positive staining and a darker color. The HBPT
            HBPT scaffold followed a rapid release in the first 3 weeks   group achieved the best osteogenesis-related staining
            (approximately 37.6% release), which may be due to the   result because it contained more biotin. The results of the
            fact that the surface area of the scaffold in contact with   semi-quantitative analysis of ALP staining (Figure 3D)
            body fluid is the greatest at the beginning. After 3 weeks,   suggested that the HBPT group had the best osteogenic
            the release of biotin plateaued, with approximately 62.4%   effect on both day 6 and day 9 of osteogenic induction.
            released at week 8. In summary, biotin-doped scaffolds can   Cytoskeletal staining of rBMSCs on the scaffold (Figure
            be successfully prepared by LTD 3D printing technology,   3E) suggested that the rBMSCs adhered well to the
            and the structure of biotin could be preserved. The   surface of the HBPT scaffold and that the cell pseudopods
            prepared biotin-doped scaffolds held a cancellous bone-  were spreading on the scaffold. Cytoskeleton staining at


































            Figure 2. Characterization of materials. (A) FTIR spectrum of biotin powder and scaffolds. (B) Porosity, (C) pore size, and (D) filament diameter of the
            scaffolds. (E) Compressive strength analysis of the scaffolds. (F) Mass variation of the scaffolds. (G) Biotin release curve in HBPT.

            Volume 10 Issue 1 (2024)                       439                          https://doi.org/10.36922/ijb.1152
   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452