Page 217 - IJB-8-4
P. 217

Dong, et al.
            A                             C














            B                             D















           Figure 3. The sintering properties and the sintered scaffolds. (A) TG and DTG analyses. (B) Different sintering curve and its comparison of
           heating rate of debinding and sintering temperature. (C and D) The obtained scaffolds sintered by different curve and their corresponding
           morphology.

           the  grains.  When  the  sintering  temperature  was  too
           high, most of the grains grew abnormally, leading to
           excessive  shrinkage  of  the  scaffold.  This  shrinkage
           exceeded  that  of  the  normally  grown  grains,  which
           severely  deformed  and  even  broke  the  scaffolds.  In
           view of this, 1100°C was set as the optimal sintering
           temperature. This was also consistent with the findings
           from  other  studies  that  45S5  bioactive  glass  powder
           above 1000°C must be sintered quickly and effectively
           so that the particles grow densely to produce sufficient
           mechanical strength [38,39] .

           3.2. Components and structure of samples after
           sintering
           Components  of  sintered  samples  were  analyzed  by
           XRD,  as  shown  in  Figure  4.  45S5  bioglass  powder
           was  an  amorphous  structure  (Figure  4: blue curve).   Figure 4. XRD patterns of 45S5 bioglass powders (blue curve),
           After  sintering,  organic  components  were  completely   3D printed scaffold after sintering at 1100°C for 2 h (red curve).
           decomposed, and some new peaks appeared as a result of   The peaks of the Na Ca Si O  phase and Na Ca (PO ) Si O  phase
                                                                                              2
                                                                                                 4
                                                                                   18
                                                                                  6
                                                                                                    4 2
                                                                               3
                                                                             6
                                                                                                        2
                                                                                                         4
           crystallization (Figure 4: red curve).  One  peak  closely   were marked by ● and ○, respectively.
           matched the standard JCPDF card 77-2189, confirming that
           the major crystalline phase was Na Ca Si O , while other   of  the  two  scaffolds  had  good  integrity,  and  uniform
                                           3
                                        6
                                             6
                                               18
           minor  peaks  which  were  the  second  phase  represented   pores  were  about  600  μm  in  diameter.  Macropores
           Na Ca (PO ) Si O ,  which  matched  the  JCPDF  card   were  interconnected  with  micropores,  with  the  size  of
                4
             2
                    4 2
                          4
                       2
           32-1053. All  these  results  were  in  accordance  with  the   5 – 10  μm.  Rough  surface  structure  may  supply  for
           previous reports .                                  the cell adhesion and proliferation, and interconnected
                        [40]
               The sintering scaffold samples were observed using   pores may supply for cell nutrient transportation and
           SEM and the results are shown in Figure 5. The structure   bone bioconductivity [41,42] . A low concentration of green
                                       International Journal of Bioprinting (2022)–Volume 8, Issue 4       209
   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222