Comparison of Printable Biomaterials for Use in Neural Tissue Engineering: An In Vitro Characterization and In Vivo Biocompatibility Assessment
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Etayo Escanilla, Miguel; Campillo, Noelia; Ávila-Fernández, Paula; Baena, José Manuel; Chato Astrain, Jesús; Campos Sánchez, Fernando; Sanchez Porras, David; García García, Oscar Darío; Carriel Araya, VíctorEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Neural tissue engineering Biomaterials 3D printing
Date
2024-05-17Referencia bibliográfica
Etayo Escanilla, M. et. al. Polymers 2024, 16, 1426. [https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16101426]
Patrocinador
Spanish “Plan Nacional de Investigación Científica, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica” (I+D+i) of the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain (Instituto de Salud Carlos III); FEDER funds (European Union) (Grants FIS PI20/00318, PI23/00337); “Proyectos de colaboración público-privada, Plan de Investigación Científica, Técnica y de innovación 2021– 2023 (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033; European Union-NextGenerationEU/PRTR) (Grant CPP2021-009070); “Ayudas Torres Quevedo” PTQ2019-010731, D.S.-P. by PFIS Fellowship Grant FIS PI20/00318; M.E.-E. by FPU Fellowship Grant FPU21/06183 of the Spanish Ministry of Universities.Résumé
Nervous system traumatic injuries are prevalent in our society, with a significant socioeconomic
impact. Due to the highly complex structure of the neural tissue, the treatment of these injuries
is still a challenge. Recently, 3D printing has emerged as a promising alternative for producing
biomimetic scaffolds, which can lead to the restoration of neural tissue function. The objective
of this work was to compare different biomaterials for generating 3D-printed scaffolds for use in
neural tissue engineering. For this purpose, four thermoplastic biomaterials, ((polylactic acid) (PLA),
polycaprolactone (PCL), Filaflex (FF) (assessed here for the first time for biomedical purposes), and
Flexdym (FD)) and gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) hydrogel were subjected to printability and mechanical
tests, in vitro cell–biomaterial interaction analyses, and in vivo biocompatibility assessment. The
thermoplastics showed superior printing results in terms of resolution and shape fidelity, whereas FD
and GelMA revealed great viscoelastic properties. GelMA demonstrated a greater cell viability index
after 7 days of in vitro cell culture. Moreover, all groups displayed connective tissue encapsulation,
with some inflammatory cells around the scaffolds after 10 days of in vivo implantation. Future
studies will determine the usefulness and in vivo therapeutic efficacy of novel neural substitutes
based on the use of these 3D-printed scaffolds.