Bone marrow stromal cells are sensitive to discrete surface alterations in build and post‐build modifications of bioinspired Ti6Al4V 3D‐printed in vitro testing constructs. Issue 4 (13th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berger, Michael B.; Cohen, D. Joshua; Snyder, Kyle; Sions, John; Boyan, Barbara D.; Schwartz, Zvi
• Is Part Of: Journal of biomedical materials research. Volume 111:Issue 4(2023)
• Page Start: 829
• Page End: 845
• Publication Date: 2022-11-13
• Subjects: 3D printing -- additive manufacturing -- build properties -- mesenchymal stem cells -- surface properties -- titanium; Biomedical materials -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.35194
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1552-4973

Abstract

Abstract: Current standards in bone‐facing implant fabrication by metal 3D (M3D) printing require post‐manufacturing modifications to create distinct surface properties and create implant microenvironments that promote osseointegration. However, the biological consequences of build parameters and surface modifications are not well understood. This study evaluated the relative contributions of build parameters and post‐manufacturing modification techniques to cell responses that impact osseointegration in vivo. Biomimetic testing constructs were created by using a M3D printer with standard titanium–aluminum–vanadium (Ti6Al4V) print parameters. These constructs were treated by either grit‐blasting and acid‐etching (GB + AE) or GB + AE followed by hot isostatic pressure (HIP) (GB + AE, HIP). Next, nine constructs were created by using a M3D printer with three build parameters: (1) standard, (2) increased hatch spacing, and (3) no infill, and additional contour trace. Each build type was further processed by either GB + AE, or HIP, or a combination of HIP treatment followed by GB + AE (GB + AE, HIP). Resulting constructs were assessed by SEM, micro‐CT, optical profilometry, XPS, and mechanical compression. Cellular response was determined by culturing human bone marrow stromal cells (MSCs) for 7 days. Surface topography differed depending on processing method; HIP created micro‐/nano‐ridge like structures and GB + AE created micro‐pits and nano‐scale texture. Micro‐CT showed decreases in closed pore number and closed porosity after HIP treatment in the third build parameter constructs. Compressive moduli were similar for all constructs. All constructs exhibited ability to differentiate MSCs into osteoblasts. MSCs responded best to micro−/nano‐structures created by final post‐processing by GB + AE, increasing OCN, OPG, VEGFA, latent TGFβ1, IL4, and IL10. Collectively these data demonstrate that M3D‐printed constructs can be readily manufactured with distinct architectures based on the print parameters and post‐build modifications. MSCs are sensitive to discrete surface topographical differences that may not show up in qualitative assessments of surface properties and respond by altering local factor production. These factors are vital for osseointegration after implant insertion, especially in patients with compromised bone qualities.