Page 473 - IJB-9-5

International Journal of Bioprinting 3D printed hydrogel for infected wound healing via PDT

Figure 2. Construction and characterization of MB@UiO-66(Ce)-SF/gelatin nanocomposite 3D-bioprinted hydrogel. (A) Photographs of 3D bioprinted
PH-0, PH-0.1, PH-0.5, and PH-1 hydrogels. Scale bar: 5 mm. (B) SEM images of PH-0, PH-0.1, PH-0.5, and PH-1 hydrogels. Scale bar: 500 and 20 µm.
(C) Compression stress strain curves of PH-0, PH-0.1, PH-0.5, and PH-1 hydrogels. (D) Compression strength of PH-0, PH-0.1, PH-0.5, and PH-1
hydrogels. (E) Tensile stress–strain curves of PH-0, PH-0.1, PH-0.5, and PH-1 hydrogels. (F) Tensile strength of PH-0, PH-0.1, PH-0.5, and PH-1 hydrogels.
Data are means ± SD; n = 3. *p < 0.05, ****p < 0.0001.

fastest in the MB@UiO-66(Ce)/PH groups compared while the hydrogel alone group showed no bactericidal
with the CON group, as shown in Figure 4B. These results effect. Figure 5A and B shows that the PH-0 hydrogel
suggest that cells in the hydrogels have better migration had no effect on bacteria, with or without light (660 nm).
ability than cells in the CON group. Furthermore, MB@UiO-66(Ce) did not kill any bacteria
in the absence of light. On the contrary, after 20 min of
3.6. Antibacterial ability of hydrogels light exposure, MB@UiO-66(Ce) reduced the viability
We quantified the antibacterial activity of the hydrogels of S. aureus and E. coli compared to the CON group.
against clinically common bacteria by using the plate count The antibacterial effect became more pronounced as the
method. Colony counts decreased in the 660 nm laser concentration increased. In the PH-1 group, most bacteria
irradiation + hydrogel group compared to the CON group, died after light exposure, as shown in Figure 5C and D.

Volume 9 Issue 5 (2023) 465 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.773