ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#Autologous fat grafting is one of the most common procedures used in plastic surgery to correct soft tissue deficiency or depression deformity. However, its clinical outcomes are often suboptimal, and lack of metabolic and architectural support at recipient sites affect fat survival leading to complications such as cyst formation, calcification.Extracellular matrix-based scaffolds, such as allograft adipose matrix (AAM) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA), have shown exceptional clinical promise as regenerative scaffolds. Magnesium hydroxide (MH), an alkaline ceramic, has attracted attention as a potential additive to improve biocompatibility. We attempted to combine fat graft with regenerative scaffolds and analyzed the changes and viability of injected fat graft in relation to the effects of injectable natural, and synthetic (PLGA/MH microsphere) biomaterials. @*METHODS@#In vitro cell cytotoxicity, angiogenesis of the scaffolds, and wound healing were evaluated using human dermal fibroblast cells. Subcutaneous soft-tissue integration of harvested fat tissue was investigated in vivo in nude mouse with random fat transfer protocol Fat integrity and angiogenesis were identified by qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry. @*RESULTS@#In vitro cell cytotoxicity was not observed both in AAM and PLGA/MH with human dermal fibroblast.PLGA/MH and AAM showed excellent wound healing effect. in vivo, the AAM and PLGA/MH retained volume compared to that in the only fat group. And the PLGA/MH showed the highest angiogenesis and anti-inflammation. @*CONCLUSION@#In this study, a comparison of the volume retention effect and angiogenic ability between autologous fat grafting, injectable natural, and synthetic biomaterials will provide a reasonable basis for fat grafting.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#We sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of patient-specific ocular prostheses produced by three-dimensional (3D) printing and the sublimation technique. A comparison with prostheses produced using manual manufacturing methods was then performed. @*Methods@#To confirm the biological and physiochemical safety, cytotoxicity, systemic acute toxicity, intradermal reaction, and skin sensitization tests were conducted according to the International Organization for Standardization guidelines. The compressive strength of the prostheses was also tested. Further, a case series of three patients who wore the 3D printed prostheses for more than eight hours daily for 4 weeks was executed. Self-assessments by these individuals using a questionnaire and safety evaluations focusing on the occurrence of conjunctival inflammation or allergic reactions according to the Cornea and Contact Lens Research Unit criteria by slit-lamp examination and similarity assessment were completed. @*Results@#The 3D printed ocular prostheses met the necessary qualifications per the biological and physiochemical safety tests, showing the absence of cytotoxicity, acute systemic toxicity, intradermal reactivity, and skin-sensitizing potency. Also, there was no difference in strength test results between previous ocular prostheses and the 3D printed ones. Self-assessment by the patients yielded satisfactory results, with no significant difference in the level of satisfaction reported for the 3D printed and previous handmade ocular prostheses. The 3D printed prosthesis did not trigger any side effects in the conjunctival sac and showed similar objective findings with respect to the color of the iris, sclera, and vessel patterns. @*Conclusions@#Our study confirms the biologic and physiochemical safety of 3D-printed ocular prostheses created using computer-aided design technology and a sublimation technique. The patients’ questionnaires and the judgment of the ophthalmologists/ocularists showed that the 3D printed ocular prosthesis was acceptable in function and appearance through a case series report.