Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:35:17.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of Ceramic-Hydrogel Composites for Use in Bone Scaffolds Made Using Additive Manufacturing Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2016

Mayra Elizabeth García-Sánchez ,
Jorge A. Perez-Naitoh ,
Daniel E. Ramirez-Arreola ,
Jorge R. Robledo-Ortíz ,
Pedro Ortega-Gudiño  and
Inés Jiménez-Palomar
Mayra Elizabeth García-Sánchez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. Departamento de Madera, Celulosa y Papel, CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Jorge A. Perez-Naitoh
Affiliation:
inMateriis S.A. de C.V., Guadalajara, Mexico.
Daniel E. Ramirez-Arreola
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ingenierías, Universidad de Guadalajara, Autlán de Navarro, Jalisco, Mexico.
Jorge R. Robledo-Ortíz
Affiliation:
Departamento de Madera, Celulosa y Papel, CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Pedro Ortega-Gudiño
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Inés Jiménez-Palomar*
Affiliation:
inMateriis S.A. de C.V., Guadalajara, Mexico.
*
*(Email: ines.jimenez@inmateriis.com)
Get access

Abstract

Overall, autologous bone grafting continues to be the gold standard for the restoration of bone defects while other practices include metallic meshes and plates. These practices are not always suitable particularly when performing reconstructive surgery in the maxillofacial region as the defects tend to be complex in terms of size and shape. These bone defect usually occur due to trauma, infection or a result of oncologic surgeries and therefore the patient requires large amount of bone grafting material [1].

There is a need for alternative methods such as is artificial bone scaffolds with regenerative medicine approaches in order to enable original tissue regeneration. In order to stimulate tissue regeneration scaffolding materials are required to have certain properties such as biocompatibility, adequate mechanical properties and internal and surface topographical features in order to provide specific biological signals to promote cell attachment and proliferation. Ideally, it would also need to be biodegradable and provide sufficient support for both the particular defect area and cellular ingrowth to degrade over time as new bone tissue is formed [2]. This work analyses the mechanical and chemical properties of Hydroxyapatite (HA) - poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDMA) and Hydroxyapatite (HA) - poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) based composites used as artificial bone scaffold material with internal structures optimized using finite element analysis (FEA) using Hyperworks OptiStruct (Altair, USA) Topological Optimization and manufactured using commercially available additive manufacturing techniques in order to develop a product that can be introduced directly into the patient. The technique allows implants to be custom made, having the right dimensions and the right mechanical properties.

Testing of the ceramic-hydrogel composite include mechanical testing in compression, tension, bending, impact and hardness while chemical analysis include Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) and Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). Morphology was analyzed using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy.

Keywords

bonebiomaterialbiomedical
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 1 , Issue 29: Soft Materials and Biomaterials , 2016 , pp. 2161 - 2166
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Götz, C., Warnke, P.H., and Kolk, A., Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology 120, 3 (2015).Google Scholar
Cama, G., in Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration, edited by Dubruel, P. & Van Vlierberghe, S. (Woodhead Publishing, Oxford, 2014), pp. 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakitani, S., Goto, T., Pineda, S.J., Young, R.G., Mansour, J.M., Caplan, A.I., and Goldberg, V.M., J Bone Joint Surg Am 76, 4 (1994).Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Lim, J., and Teoh, S., Biotechnology advances 31, 5 (2013).Google Scholar
Puppi, D., Chiellini, F., Piras, A.M., and Chiellini, E., Progress in Polymer Science 35, 4 (2010).Google Scholar
Georgiou, M., CJ Bunting, S., Davies, H.A., Loughlin, A.J., Golding, J.P., and Phillips, J.B., Biomaterials 34, 30 (2013).Google Scholar
Wang, X., Li, Q., Hu, X., Ma, L., You, C., Zheng, Y., Sun, H., Han, C., and Gao, C., Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 8 (2012).Google Scholar
Geever, L.M., Cooney, C.C., Lyons, J.G., Kennedy, J.E., Nugent, M.J.D., Devery, S., and Higginbotham, C.L., European journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 69, (2008).Google Scholar
Wu, S., Liu, X., Yeung, K.W.K., Liu, C., and Yang, X., Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 80 (2014).Google Scholar
Kane, R.J., Weiss-Bilka, H.E., Meagher, M.J., Liu, Y., Gargac, J.A., Niebur, G.L., Wagner, D.R., and Roeder, R.K., Acta biomaterialia 17 (2015).Google Scholar
Derby, B., Science 338, 6109 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. V. and Atala, A., Nature biotechnology 32, 8 (2014).Google Scholar