A comparison study of different physical treatments on cartilage matrix derived porous scaffolds for tissue engineering applications

Abstract

Native cartilage matrix derived (CMD) scaffolds from various animal and human sources have drawn attention in cartilage tissue engineering due to the demonstrable presence of bioactive components. Different chemical and physical treatments have been employed to enhance the micro-architecture of CMD scaffolds. In this study we have assessed the typical effects of physical cross-linking methods, namely ultraviolet (UV) light, dehydrothermal (DHT) treatment, and combinations of them on bovine articular CMD porous scaffolds with three different matrix concentrations (5%, 15% and 30%) to assess the relative strengths of each treatment. Our findings suggest that UV and UV–DHT treatments on 15% CMD scaffolds can yield architecturally optimal scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering.

Fabrication of anatomically-shaped cartilage constructs using decellularized cartilage-derived matrix scaffolds

“…2C), which has been observed previously [13, 14]. While previous studies have shown no change in porosity [24] or increasing pore size [35] with increasing CDM concentration, these discrepancies may be attributable to differences in the fabrication process of the CDM scaffolds. Studies that reported changes in porosity [24] and pore size [35] that conflicted with the findings of the current study fabricated CDM scaffolds via homogenization alone, which has been shown to result in larger CDM particle sizes of 322 μm [14].…”

“…While previous studies have shown no change in porosity [24] or increasing pore size [35] with increasing CDM concentration, these discrepancies may be attributable to differences in the fabrication process of the CDM scaffolds. Studies that reported changes in porosity [24] and pore size [35] that conflicted with the findings of the current study fabricated CDM scaffolds via homogenization alone, which has been shown to result in larger CDM particle sizes of 322 μm [14]. In contrast, the current study synthesized CDM constructs from pulverized CDM power, which leads to fine particle sizes of 97 μm and has been shown to produce more consistent pore size and morphology compared to CDM scaffolds fabricated via homogenization alone [14].…”

“…These results agreed with previous findings in freeze-cast CDM [14], hydroxyapatite [49], silk [45], and gelatin [37] scaffolds that reported increasing slurry concentration decreased porosity, which in turn increased compressive strength. While previous studies only examined the effect of CDM concentration on the compressive modulus [14, 35], the current study investigated the effect of different pore architectures (Fig. 3) in addition to CDM concentration.…”

“…Physical crosslinking techniques such as dehydrothermal treatment [18, 35, 36] or ultraviolet irradiation [18, 19, 21, 35, 36] have also been applied to prevent cell-mediated contraction of CDM scaffolds. Furthermore, these physical crosslinking treatments have been shown to preserve epitopes that participate in cell-matrix interactions, and supported greater chondrogenic differentiation than chemically crosslinked scaffolds [18].…”

Chondrogenic potential of physically treated bovine cartilage matrix derived porous scaffolds on human dermal fibroblast cells

“…Physical treatments were applied to the cartilage matrix derived (CMD) scaffolds to enhance the cross‐linking and hence to improve their mechanical properties. We showed that Ultra‐Violet irradiation (UV) and Ultra‐Violet+Dehydrothermal (UVDHT) treatments yield highly interconnected porous scaffolds with the best architecture and mechanical properties . The high porosity of the scaffolds, measured through our highly precise and accurate microvolumetric method provided easy cell penetration.…”