Effect of scaffold architecture and pore size on smooth muscle cell growth.

Tissue engineering has the potential to replace damaged tissues and organs. Diffusion limitation of cell growth in three-dimensional (3D) scaffolds is a significant constraint in most tissue engineering applications. This study describes a scaffold architecture that improves mass transfer. Scaffolds with three different geometries of villi architecture (0.5, 1, 0.5; 0.5, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1 mm; villus diameter, height, intervillus spacing, respectively) were fabricated by indirect 3D printing technique. The ability of these scaffolds to support smooth muscle cell growth was investigated in vitro. Smooth muscle cells attached to the scaffolds uniformly after 1 day of culture, and the cell density in the scaffold with small villi feature (0.5 mm) was significantly higher as compared to that for the scaffold with large villi features (1 mm) after 14 days of culture. To evaluate the effect of scaffold pore size on cell growth, scaffolds with three different pore size ranges (50-100, 100-150, and 150-200 microm) were fabricated by the solvent casting and particulate leaching technique. Scaffold pore size did not significantly affect cell growth after 14 days of culture. Optimization in the architectural design of scaffolds provides an alternative method to improve diffusion limitation in the 3D constructs.

[1]  L G Griffith,et al.  Effect of pore size and void fraction on cellular adhesion, proliferation, and matrix deposition. , 2001, Tissue engineering.

[2]  A. Mikos,et al.  Effect of convection on osteoblastic cell growth and function in biodegradable polymer foam scaffolds. , 2001, Biomaterials.

[3]  M J Yaszemski,et al.  Bone formation by three-dimensional stromal osteoblast culture in biodegradable polymer scaffolds. , 1997, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[4]  R Langer,et al.  Laminated three-dimensional biodegradable foams for use in tissue engineering. , 1993, Biomaterials.

[5]  Robert Langer,et al.  Biodegradable Polymer Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering , 1994, Bio/Technology.

[6]  J Marler,et al.  Transplantation of cells in matrices for tissue regeneration. , 1998, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[7]  P. Ma,et al.  Synthetic nano-fibrillar extracellular matrices with predesigned macroporous architectures. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[8]  A. Margulis,et al.  In vivo transplantation of engineered human skin. , 2005, Methods in molecular biology.

[9]  Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic,et al.  Perfusion improves tissue architecture of engineered cardiac muscle. , 2002, Tissue engineering.

[10]  L. Griffith,et al.  Tissue Engineering--Current Challenges and Expanding Opportunities , 2002, Science.

[11]  C T Laurencin,et al.  Bone tissue engineering in a rotating bioreactor using a microcarrier matrix system. , 2001, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[12]  Joo L. Ong,et al.  Diffusion in Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering Scaffolds: Design Issues Related to Porosity, Permeability, Architecture, and Nutrient Mixing , 2004, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[13]  B D Boyan,et al.  Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[14]  U A Stock,et al.  Tissue engineering: current state and prospects. , 2001, Annual review of medicine.

[15]  D. Ingber,et al.  Prevascularization of porous biodegradable polymers , 1993, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[16]  L G Griffith,et al.  Survival and function of hepatocytes on a novel three-dimensional synthetic biodegradable polymer scaffold with an intrinsic network of channels. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[17]  M J Yaszemski,et al.  Three-dimensional culture of rat calvarial osteoblasts in porous biodegradable polymers. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[18]  Benjamin M. Wu,et al.  Scaffold fabrication by indirect three-dimensional printing. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[19]  J. Vacanti,et al.  Tissue engineering : Frontiers in biotechnology , 1993 .