Researchers from the US and Portugal are refining tissue engineering applications further, releasing the findings of their study in the recently published ‘A Multimodal Stimulation Cell Culture Bioreactor for Tissue Engineering: A Numerical Modelling Approach .’ In creating a new bioreactor for 3D printing, the authors worked to promote reproducibility and optimization, fabricating a design not possible using conventional techniques.
In most bioprinting, cells are seeded onto scaffolds—also the source of much study, whether in regard to new techniques , enhancements , or interface engineering —and then researchers must hope for viability. Promoting cell growth and sustainability is one of the greatest challenges in any type of bioprinting, and often devices like perfusion flow bioreactors are used in replacing culture mediums to remove toxins. In some cases, they are also used for mechanical stimulation through fluid flow shear stress (FFSS). Electric field stimulation devices can also be easily used to encourage cells to grow, mature, and differentiate.
The bioreactor used here was part of a previous study conducted by the authors, but now updated (using SOLIDWORKS 2018 Student Edition ) to include capabilities in E-Field stimulation and fluid flow mechanical stimulation. 3D design was performed in SOLIDWORKS 2018 Student Edition. Assessment of the new design was part of this study, leaving the team to create a numerical finite element analysis (FEA) of the model.
With FEA, the researchers could project input conditions for the bioreactor, further enhancing effectiveness of cell stimulation, determined from in vitro data. Overall, in vitro tests can offer ‘essential’ information for confirming ranges of multimodal stimulation—projected via numerical studies.
“Electrical and mechanical stimulation conditions in the region-of-interest (ROI) were considered for bone cell stimulation optimization, according with reference values obtained from two previous in vitro studies on bone cell stimulation, one applying mechanical stimulation, and the other using E-Field stimulation,” explained the authors.
Flow splitters were added between the inlet and the scaffold, resulting in ‘indirect flow prevalence.’ Inlets and outlets were fitted with hose joiners, connecting them to the perfusion pump. The cell culture chamber was separated into two different areas for cell cultures and cell seeding exercises. Materials for use in the platform were required to be non-toxic and suitable according to ISO 10993-5 standards.
“Accordingly, in the direct contact test, cells cultured in contact with all the materials presented normal fibroblast morphology with no evidence of any inhibition halo effect or cell death. According to the cytotoxicity tests results, all candidate materials are suitable for our bioreactor AM fabrication,” concluded the researchers. “We will consider C8 and PETG as materials of interest for future design fabrication. C8 is a new material with good layer adhesion and surface quality, which are key features for the perfusion flow. The C8 supplier datasheet reveals that this material has a higher tensile strength than ABS, resulting in improved mechanical characteristics, which are important for the overall robustness of the bioreactor to withstand the tightness of pressure chambers.”
“A design–numerical modelling approach will be essential to understand the underlying biophysical effects of electric and mechanical stimuli in cell cultures and can be a powerful tool for standardization of stimulation protocols considering different bioreactor designs and specific TE outcomes.”
What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com .
The post Cell Culture Bioreactor for Tissue Engineering appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing .