Page 31 - IJB-2-1
P. 31

Sandra Sánchez-Salcedo,  Montserrat Colilla, Isabel  Izquierdo-Barba,  et al.

            decrease in wettability due to a ‘‘lotus leaf effect’’ on      Since the emergence of TE in the mid-1980s, a wide
            the material surface [56] . To estimate the wettability of   variety of shaping  methodologies for manufacturing
            the different surface samples, contact angles  mea-  3D porous scaffolds have been developed. There are
            surements were  measured. The contact angle for the   many manufacturing methods ranging from the more
            initial Ti6Al4V substrate  was 56º whilst that of the   conventional ones, which lead to randomly intercon-
            Nano-Ti6Al4V was 102º showing a drastic increase in   nected porous scaffolds and that which are principally
            the hydrophobicity  for the nanostructured surfaces.   based on the incorporation of porogen particles [66] , use
            The antibacterial effect of the Nano-Ti6Al4V surfaces   of foam replica technique [67] , gel-casting of foams [68] ,
            was evaluated by means of bacterial adhesion experi-  cold isostatic pressing [69] , deproteinization of bovine
            ments and compared with those on  medical grade    bone [70] , particulate leaching [71] , freeze-drying [72] , gas
            Ti6Al4V substrates. Different S. aureus strains from a   foaming [73] , and a combination of the  methods [74] ; to
            collection strain and six clinical strains isolated from   more  sophisticated technologies based  on solid free
            different patients were used. Results showed that Na-  form (SFF) fabrication such as rapid prototyping (RP).
            no-Ti6Al4V exhibited a notable decrease in S. aureus   RP techniques allowed  accurate  control in the  ma-
            adhesion for  both the collection and  clinical strains   cro-microporosity scales and fabricating custom-made
            (around 70%) with  respect to the untreated Ti6Al4V   implants, which allowed the fabrication of scaffolds
            surfaces.                                          both of bioceramic and metallic nature [75] . These tech-
               Concerning biofilm  formation, confocal  microsco-  niques constituted  a  general strategy in which  3D
            py was used to characterize sequential biofilm forma-  parts  are printed  layer-by-layer based  on a comput-
            tion after different periods (Figure 3B). The presence   er-aided-design (CAD) to fabricate 3D interconnected
            of a few scattered bacteria on the Nano-Ti6Al4V sur-  porous scaffolds at a large scale [76,77] . Thus, the scaf-
            face was noted, as well as the absence of biofilm after   fold architecture can be adjusted and optimized to at-
            24  hours  of  incubation.  Additional  confocal  micro-  tain the adequate mechanical response, accelerate bone
            scopy experiments were performed using calcofluor   regeneration process, and guide bone formation with
            fluorescent stains to stain  the  extracellular  matrix  of   the  anatomic cortical-trabecular  structure [78] . Several
            biofilms after 48 hours (Figure 3B). The confocal 3D   RP techniques have  been used for scaffolds prepara-
            images corresponding to biofilm formation demon-   tion, such as robocasting (RC), selective laser sinter-
            strated that non-coated  Ti6Al4V substrates clearly   ing (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), stereolitho-
            show biofilm formation from the blue staining of typ-  graphy (SLA) [79–82] , 3D printing (3DP) [83–85]  and fused
            ical extracellular  matrix  covering  the bacterial colo-  deposition modeling (FDM) [86,87] . Herein we reviewed
            nies. In contrast, blue  staining was absent in Na-  the two main RP techniques, namely robocasting (RC)
            no-Ti6Al4V.                                        and selective laser based techniques as SLS and SLM,
               In vitro biocompatibility was assessed by culturing   used for the  manufacture of bioceramic  and  metallic
            the HOS cell line on the Nano-Ti6Al4V. Results have   scaffolds by itself or in combination with polymers.
            indicated  similar behavior regarding  the initial os-
            teoblast adhesion and mitochondrial activity between   3.1 Robocasting (RC)
            both surfaces, indicating a good biocompatibility. SEM   RC technology also known as direct-printing assembly,
            micrographs after 1 day of culture confirmed that Na-  is distinctive among these processes because it allo-
            no-Ti6Al4V behaved as well as pristine Ti6Al4V with   wed  the  building of  ceramic scaffolds  using water-
            respect to human osteoblasts (Figure 3C). The surfac-  based inks with minimal organic content (<1wt.%) [88] .
            es in both cases appeared fully covered by cells, exhi-  Slurries developed from RC must fulfill two important
            biting good adhesion, proliferation and degree of ex-  criteria [89] . Firstly, its viscoelastic properties  must al-
            tension. Higher  magnification images showed the   low it to flow through a deposition nozzle and then
            anchoring elements spread by the cells.            “set” instantaneously so that its shape is preserved as

            3. Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering           additional layers are deposited or when it span gaps in
                                                               the  underlying structure. Secondly, the suspension
            The application of the above-mentioned antibacterial   must have a high solid volume concentration to reduce
            strategies  to implants manufactured  as  3D  scaffolds   shrinkage [90] . The stability  of these slurries demands
            would represent a step forward in bone  tissue engi-  high  dispersive  forces  between  particles,  where  the
            neering (BTE).                                     role  of  the  dispersant  is  critical [90,91] .  The  resulting

                                        International Journal of Bioprinting (2016)–Volume 2, Issue 1      27
   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36