A Composite Lactide-Mineral 3D-Printed Scaffold for Bone Repair and Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthopedic tumor resection, trauma, or degenerative disease surgeries can result in large bone defects and often require bone grafting. However, standard autologous bone grafting has been associated with donor site morbidity and/or limited quantity. As an alternate, allografts with or without metallic or polyether-etherketone have been used as grafting substitutes. However, these may have drawbacks as well, including stress shielding, pseudarthrosis, disease-transmission, and infection. There is therefore a need for alternative bone substitutes, such as the use of mechanically compliant three-dimensional (3D)-printed scaffolds. Several off-the-shelf materials are available for low-cost fused deposition 3D printing such as polylactic acid (PLA) and polycaprolactone (PCL). We have previously described the feasibility of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds to support cell activity and extracellular matrix deposition. In this study, we investigate two medical-grade filaments consistent with specifications found in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for semi-crystalline polylactide polymers for surgical implants, a pure polymer (100M) and a copolymeric material (7415) for their cytocompatibility and suitability in bone tissue engineering. Moreover, we assessed the impact on osteo-inductive properties with the addition of beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) minerals and assessed their mechanical properties. 100M and 7415 scaffolds with the additive β-TCP demonstrated superior mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) differentiation detected via increased alkaline phosphatase activity (6-fold and 1.5-fold, respectively) and mineralized matrix deposition (14-fold and 5-fold, respectively) in vitro . Furthermore, we evaluated in vivo compatibility, biosafety and bone repair potential in a rat femur window defect model. 100M +β - TCP implants displayed a positive biosafety profile and showed significantly enhanced new bone formation compared to 100M implants evidenced by μCT (39 versus 25% bone volume/tissue volume ratio) and histological analysis 6 weeks post-implantation. These scaffolds are encouraging composite biomaterials for repairing bone applications with a great potential for clinical translation. Further analyses are required with appropriate evaluation in a larger critical-sized defect animal model with long-term follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".