Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
Sec. Biomaterials
Volume 12 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1473777
This article is part of the Research Topic Advances in Polymer-Based Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine View all articles

Comparative Analysis of Solvent-based and Solvent-Free (Melting) Methods for Fabricating 3D-Printed Polycaprolactone-Hydroxyapatite composite Bone Scaffolds: Physicochemical/mechanical analyses and in vitro cytocompatibility

Provisionally accepted
Brigita De Vega Brigita De Vega 1Abir Dutta Abir Dutta 1Craig Gerrand Craig Gerrand 1,2Ashleigh Boyd Ashleigh Boyd 3,4Deepak M Kalaskar Deepak M Kalaskar 1,5*
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, Stanmore, England, United Kingdom
  • 2 Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, United Kingdom
  • 3 Institute of Immunity and Transplantation, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom
  • 4 Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom
  • 5 University College London, London, United Kingdom

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Purpose -The study conducts a comparative analysis between two prominent methods for fabricating composites for bone scaffolds-the (solid) solvent method and the solvent-free (melting) method. While previous research has explored these methods individually, this study provides a direct comparison of their outcomes in terms of physicochemical properties, cytocompatibility, and mechanical strength. We also analyse their workflow and scalability potentials.Design/methodology/approach -Polycaprolactone (PCL) and hydroxyapatite (HA) composites were prepared using solvent (chloroform) and melting (180 °C) methods, then 3Dprinted using an extrusion-based 3D printer to fabricate scaffolds (8 × 8 × 4 mm). Rheology, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), accelerated degradation, mechanical/compression test, wettability/contact angle, live/dead assay, and DNA quantification (Picogreen) assays were evaluated.Findings -The study finds that scaffolds made via the solid solvent method have higher mechanical strength and degradation rate as compared to those from the melting method, while both methods ensure adequate cytocompatibility and homogenous hydroxyapatite distribution, supporting their use in bone tissue engineering.Originality -This research investigates the utility of chloroform as a solvent for PCL composite in a direct comparison with the melting method. It also highlights the differences in workflows between the two methods and their scalability implications, emphasizing the importance of considering workflow efficiency and the potential for automation in scaffold fabrication processes for bone tissue engineering applications.

    Keywords: composite, Bone scaffold, 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, polycaprolactone, hydroxyapatite

    Received: 31 Jul 2024; Accepted: 02 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 De Vega, Dutta, Gerrand, Boyd and Kalaskar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Deepak M Kalaskar, University College London, London, United Kingdom

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.