@article{SchmitzJannaschWeigeletal.2020,
  author    = {Schmitz, Tobias and Jannasch, Maren and Weigel, Tobias and Moseke, Claus and Gbureck, Uwe and Groll, J{\"u}rgen and Walles, Heike and Hansmann, Jan},
  title     = {Nanotopographical Coatings Induce an Early Phenotype-Specific Response of Primary Material-Resident M1 and M2 Macrophages},
  series = {Materials},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Materials},
  number    = {5},
  issn      = {1996-1944},
  doi       = {10.3390/ma13051142},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-203378},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Implants elicit an immunological response after implantation that results in the worst case in a complete implant rejection. This biomaterial-induced inflammation is modulated by macrophages and can be influenced by nanotopographical surface structures such as titania nanotubes or fractal titanium nitride (TiN) surfaces. However, their specific impact on a distinct macrophage phenotype has not been identified. By using two different levels of nanostructures and smooth samples as controls, the influence of tubular TiO2 and fractal TiN nanostructures on primary human macrophages with M1 or M2-phenotype was investigated. Therefore, nanotopographical coatings were either, directly generated by physical vapor deposition (PVD) or by electrochemical anodization of titanium PVD coatings. The cellular response of macrophages was quantitatively assessed to demonstrate a difference in biocompatibility of nanotubes in respect to human M1 and M2-macrophages. Depending on the tube diameter of the nanotubular surfaces, low cell numbers and impaired cellular activity, was detected for M2-macrophages, whereas the impact of nanotubes on M1-polarized macrophages was negligible. Importantly, we could confirm this phenotypic response on the fractal TiN surfaces. The results indicate that the investigated topographies specifically impact the macrophage M2-subtype that modulates the formation of the fibrotic capsule and the long-term response to an implant.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GenslerLeikeimMoellmannetal.2020,
  author    = {Gensler, Marius and Leikeim, Anna and M{\"o}llmann, Marc and Komma, Miriam and Heid, Susanne and M{\"u}ller, Claudia and Boccaccini, Aldo R. and Salehi, Sahar and Groeber-Becker, Florian and Hansmann, Jan},
  title     = {3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0242615},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-231368},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process.},
  language  = {en}
}