Page 269 - IJB-9-3
P. 269

International Journal of Bioprinting                            Performance of Bredigite-based bone scaffolds



            Table 2. Selected results of porosity of scaffolds with different   Table 3. Sample grouping and degradation time
            models
                                                                Group        Degradation time
             Model  W 0  W 1    W 2    W    P       P ave       1            2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks
             T50    2.42  195.32  197.46  2.69  49.09%  50.12%  2            2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks
                    2.4  194.96  197.15  2.63  52.27%           3            2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks
                    2.47  194.58  196.89  2.64  51.51%          4            1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days
             T60    1.99  193.3  195.1  2.26  58.69%  59.91%
                    1.99  192.95  194.75  2.29  61.22%          (v)  The configured 25 mg/mL protein standard solution
                    1.96  192.49  194.31  2.17  60.00%              (40  μL) was removed and then  added to  1960 μL
             T70    1.5  194.2  195.63  1.67  70.83%  70.10%        of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to prepare a
                    1.54  193.89  195.32  1.78  68.57%              standard with a concentration of 0.5 mg/mL. Next,
                    1.53  193.6  195.01  1.8  69.23%                5 mL of the bicinchoninic acid (BCA) reagent
                                                                    was  added  to  100  μL  of  the  BCA  reagent,  and  a
             K50    2.39  195.12  197.22  2.69  50.84%  50.37%      BCA  working  solution was  obtained  by  mixing
                    2.44  194.74  196.98  2.65  51.21%              well. Finally, 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 μL of the
                    2.34  194.34  196.41  2.6  49.05%               standards were added to the 96-well plates, and the
             K60    1.98  193.25  195.06  2.23  59.52%  59.52%      diluted standard solution was further diluted until
                    1.98  192   193.83  2.21  60.52%                the volume of each standard solution was 20 μL; the
                    1.94  191.5  193.3  2.16  61.11%                diluted concentration was equivalent to 0, 0.025,
             K70    1.52  194.18  195.61  1.74  70.96%  70.97%      0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 mg/mL of the standard
                                                                    concentration.
                    1.58  194.24  195.78  1.67  69.23%
                    1.59  194.15  195.78  1.5  69.23%           (vi)  The four eluents were removed, and 20 μL of these
                                                                    was added to the 96-well plate. Then, 200 μL of the
                                                                    BCA working solution was added to each well and
             (ii)  After incubation, the sample was removed and gently   placed in an environment with temperature set at
                 rinsed three times in sterile water to wash the protein   37°c for 20–30 min. Three parallel holes were created
                 that was not adsorbed onto the sample.             in each of the four samples.

             (iii)  All  samples  were  placed in  a 12-well  culture  plate     (vii)  A microplate meter was used to measure the
                 and eluted with 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate for 1 h.
                                                                    absorbance at the wavelength of 562 nm. The protein
             (iv)  The eluent was collected and placed in a centrifugal   concentration in the eluent of the sample was then
                 tube for use (four eluents were used in this study and   calculated to determine the protein adsorption
                 labeled as T1, T2, K1, and K2).                    capacity of the sample.

























            Figure 4. Electronic universal testing machine compression test. (a) In situ bone sample before compression test. (b) In situ bone samples after pressure
            test destruction.


            Volume 9 Issue 3 (2023)                        261                         https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.708
   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274