Evaluation of Cellular Response to 3D-Printed Scaffolds Based on Polyhedral Geometries: Icosahedron, Dodecahedron, and Truncated Icosahedron
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/gwcnhp88Keywords:
Tissue engineering; Scaffolds; Mechanical properties; 3D-printing; Polyhedron; Cellular response.Abstract
Tissue engineering has increasingly focused on developing scaffolds capable of providing structural support while promoting cell adhesion and distribution on the scaffold surface, thereby supporting tissue regeneration. In this study, polyhedral-based scaffolds with dodecahedron, icosahedron, and truncated icosahedron geometries were designed and fabricated from polylactic acid (PLA) using fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing. The morphology and pore size of the scaffolds were characterized using optical microscopy, and their mechanical behavior was evaluated through uniaxial compression tests in flat and vertical orientations. Human gingival fibroblasts (HGF) were cultured on the scaffolds to evaluate cell proliferation using WST-1 assays after 1, 3, and 7 days, as well as cell morphology and distribution by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and fluorescence microscopy after 24 h. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (p<0.05). The results demonstrated that the scaffold geometry and loading orientation significantly influenced the mechanical behavior of the printed structures. The vertically oriented icosahedron scaffold exhibited the highest compressive strength (378.45±0.09 MPa), whereas the truncated icosahedron exhibited the highest elastic modulus (147.07±2.13 MPa). HGF proliferation remained comparable to that of the tissue culture plate control over the evaluated time periods. SEM and fluorescence microscopy revealed cell adhesion and distribution on all scaffold surfaces, although differences in cell organization were observed depending on the scaffold geometry. The results indicate that polyhedral architectures influence both the mechanical properties and cellular response of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds.
Downloads
References
Santoro A., Voto A., Fortino L., Guida R., Laudisio C, Cillo M, et al. Bone Defect Treatment in Regenerative Medicine: Exploring Natural and Synthetic Bone Substitutes. Int J Mol Sci. 2025 Mar 27; 26 (7): 3085. doi:10.3390/ijms26073085
Banerjee D., Vydiam K., Vangala V., Mukherjee S. Advancement of Nanomaterials- and Biomaterials-Based Technologies for Wound Healing and Tissue Regenerative Applications. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2025 Mar 17; 8 (3): 1877-99. doi:10.1021/acsabm.5c00075
March A., Castillo Aguirre S.H., Eliseev R., Choe R., Benoit D.S.W. Long-term tissue engineered periosteum-mediated allograft healing is hindered due to persistent fibrosis and limited allograft remodeling. Bone Rep. 2025 Sep; 26: 101865. doi:10.1016/j.bonr.2025.101865
Ganesan O., Kiwanuka H., Hamaguchi R., Orgill D.P. A review of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering with a focus on wound healing and anti-aging. Front Surg. 2025 Jun 5; 12. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2025.1504563
Olson J.L., Atala A., Yoo J.J. Tissue Engineering: Current Strategies and Future Directions. Chonnam Med J. 2011; 47 (1): 1. doi:10.4068/cmj.2011.47.1.1
Ashammakhi N., GhavamiNejad A., Tutar R., Fricker A., Roy I., Chatzistavrou X., et al. Highlights on Advancing Frontiers in Tissue Engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2022 Jun 10; 28 (3): 633-64. doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2021.0012
Franco Urquiza E.A. Advances in Additive Manufacturing of Polymer-Fused Deposition Modeling on Textiles: From 3D Printing to Innovative 4D Printing—A Review. Polymers (Basel). 2024 Mar 4; 16 (5): 700. doi:10.3390/polym16050700
Pereira A.C., Nayak V.V., Coelho P.G., Witek L. Integrative Modeling and Experimental Insights into 3D and 4D Printing Technologies. Polymers (Basel). 2024 Sep 24; 16 (19): 2686. doi:10.3390/polym16192686
Arias-Peregrino V.M., Tenorio-Barajas A.Y, Mendoza-Barrera C.O., Román-Doval J., Lavariega-Sumano E.F., Torres-Arellanes S.P., et al. 3D Printing for Tissue Engineering: Printing Techniques, Biomaterials, Challenges, and the Emerging Role of 4D Bioprinting. Bioengineering. 2025 Aug 30; 12 (9): 936. doi:10.3390/bioengineering12090936
Prem Ananth K., Jayram N.D. A comprehensive review of 3D printing techniques for biomaterial-based scaffold fabrication in bone tissue engineering. Annals of 3D Printed Medicine. 2024 Feb; 13: 100141. doi:10.1016/j.stlm.2023.100141
Kwon D.Y., Park J.Y., Lee B.Y., Kim M.S. Comparison of Scaffolds Fabricated via 3D Printing and Salt Leaching: In Vivo Imaging, Biodegradation, and Inflammation. Polymers (Basel). 2020 Sep 26; 12 (10): 2210. doi:10.3390/polym12102210
Pazhamannil R.V., Alkhedher M. Advances in additive manufacturing for bone tissue engineering: materials, design strategies, and applications. Biomedical Materials. 2025 Jan 1; 20 (1): 012002. doi:10.1088/1748-605X/ad9dce
Juarez-Navarro K.J., Guarino V., Alvarez-Perez M.A. Converging Electrospinning and 3D-Printing Technologies: From Innovative Design for Tissue Engineering to Global Patent Trends and Technology Transfer. Fibers. 2025 Jun 19; 13 (6): 83. doi:10.3390/fib13060083
Sobral J.M., Caridade S.G., Sousa R.A., Mano J.F., Reis R.L. Three-dimensional plotted scaffolds with controlled pore size gradients: Effect of scaffold geometry on mechanical performance and cell seeding efficiency. Acta Biomater. 2011 Mar; 7 (3): 1009-18. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2010.11.003
Zadpoor A.A. Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry. Biomater Sci. 2015; 3 (2): 231-45. doi:10.1039/C4BM00291A
Werner M., Kurniawan N.A., Bouten C.V.C. Cellular Geometry Sensing at Different Length Scales and its Implications for Scaffold Design. Materials. 2020 Feb 21; 13 (4): 963. doi:10.3390/ma13040963
Bružauskaitė I., Bironaitė D., Bagdonas E., Bernotienė E. Scaffolds and cells for tissue regeneration: different scaffold pore sizes—different cell effects. Cytotechnology. 2016 May 20; 68 (3): 355-69. doi:10.1007/s10616-015-9895-4
Mukasheva F., Adilova L., Dyussenbinov A., Yernaimanova B., Abilev M., Akilbekova D. Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: insights across various tissue types. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024 Nov 12; 12. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2024.1444986
Loh Q.L., Choong C. Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: Role of Porosity and Pore Size. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2013 Dec; 19 (6): 485-502. doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0437
Mitra J., Tripathi G., Sharma A., Basu B. Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: role of surface patterning on osteoblast response. RSC Adv. 2013; 3 (28): 11073. doi:10.1039/c3ra23315d
Liu N., Shi Y., Li J., Shen K., Zhang Z., Liu K., et al. Morphology-guided cellular behavior modulation with 3D-printed engineered ECM. Cell Biomaterials. 2025 Jul; 1 (6): 100090. doi:10.1016/j.celbio.2025.100090
León P.I., Muhlich U., Aravena P.C., Martínez G. Mechanical Characterization of 3D-Printed Scaffolds: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach Using Virtual Testing and Homogenization. Biomimetics. 2025 Sep 2; 10 (9): 580. doi:10.3390/biomimetics10090580
Velasco M.A., Lancheros Y., Garzón-Alvarado D.A. Geometric and mechanical properties evaluation of scaffolds for bone tissue applications designing by a reaction-diffusion models and manufactured with a material jetting system. J Comput Des Eng. 2016 Oct 1; 3 (4): 385-97. doi:10.1016/j.jcde.2016.06.006
Cheah C.M., Chua C.K., Leong K.F., Cheong C.H., Naing M.W. Automatic Algorithm for Generating Complex Polyhedral Scaffold Structures for Tissue Engineering. Tissue Eng. 2004 Mar; 10 (3-4): 595-610. doi:10.1089/107632704323061951
Takabatake K., Yamachika E., Tsujigiwa H., Takeda Y., Kimura M., Takagi S., et al. Effect of geometry and microstructure of honeycomb TCP scaffolds on bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014 Sep;102 (9): 2952-0. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34966
Chantarapanich N., Puttawibul P., Sucharitpwatskul S., Jeamwatthanachai P., Inglam S., Sitthiseripratip K. Scaffold Library for Tissue Engineering: A Geometric Evaluation. Comput Math Methods Med. 2012; 2012: 1-14. doi:10.1155/2012/407805
Zhai Y., Zhong T., Guo S., Lin S., Hui D., Ma X. Layered Gradient Rhombic Dodecahedron Composite Structures for Biomimetic Bone Fabricated via Selective Laser Melting. Micromachines (Basel). 2025 May 31; 16 (6): 673. doi:10.3390/mi16060673
Zhang H., Zhang M., Zhai D., Qin C., Wang Y., Ma J., et al. Polyhedron-Like Biomaterials for Innervated and Vascularized Bone Regeneration. Advanced Materials. 2023 Oct 13; 35 (42). doi:10.1002/adma.202302716
Khan N., Riccio A. A systematic review of design for additive manufacturing of aerospace lattice structures: Current trends and future directions. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 2024 Aug; 149: 101021. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2024.101021
Altamimi S., Lee D.W., Barsoum I., Rowshan R., Jasiuk I.M., Abu Al-Rub R.K. Stiffness, strength, anisotropy, and buckling of lattices derived from TPMS and Platonic and Archimedean solids. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures. 2025 Jan 2; 32 (1): 79-106. doi:10.1080/15376494.2024.2340066
Lai H., Gong B., Yin J., Qian J. 3D printing topographic cues for cell contact guidance: A review. Mater Des. 2022 Jun; 218: 110663. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110663
Valchanov P., Yaneva Y., Pavlov S., Kontny A., Dikova T. The Concept of the Optimal Bioscaffold: Parameters, Problems, and Their Resolution Through Additive Manufacturing. Biomedicines. 2025 Oct 31; 13 (11): 2688. doi:10.3390/biomedicines13112688
Nuño-Soriano A., Arias-Hidalgo C., Montalvillo E., Góngora R., Hernández Á.P., Juanes-Velasco P., et al. Evaluating Biocompatibility: From Classical Techniques to State-of-the-Art Functional Proteomics. Nanomaterials. 2025 Jul 3; 15 (13):1032. doi:10.3390/nano15131032
Paul S., Hanisch O., Nesic D. Human Gingival Fibroblast Proliferation on Materials Used for Dental Implant Abutments: A Systematic Review. Int J Prosthodont. 2021 Nov; 34 (6): 811-28. doi:10.11607/ijp.7388
Mizrahi I.K., Neculau C., Balasea B.V., Rus F., Imre M., Cernega A., et al. Cellular bioenergetic and migratory responses of human gingival fibroblasts to 940 nm diode laser photobiomodulation. Sci Rep. 2026 Jan 21; 16 (1): 5972. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-35824-8
Vazquez-Vazquez F.C., Chavarria-Bolaños D., Ortiz-Magdaleno M., Guarino V., Alvarez-Perez M.A. 3D-Printed Tubular Scaffolds Decorated with Air-Jet-Spun Fibers for Bone Tissue Applications. Bioengineering. 2022 Apr 27; 9 (5): 189. doi:10.3390/bioengineering9050189
Yu J., Han C., Yu F., Dong C., Zhao G., Gong C., et al. Icosahedron-dominated tension–compression asymmetry and brittle–ductile transition of metallic glass. J Mater Res. 2023 Aug 28; 38 (16): 3901-12. doi:10.1557/s43578-023-01107-5
Nguyen V.C., Tien D.H., Ngo Q.T., Pham V.T., Nguyen B.N., Nguyen H.K. Structural Performance and Optimization of 3D-Printed PLA Lattice Structures for Sustainable Design in Load-Bearing Applications. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research. 2025 Apr 3; 15 (2): 21086-92. doi:10.48084/etasr.9628
Al Asali W., López Á.M.M., Oval R., Gaspar O., Lara-Bocanegra A.J., Majano-Majano A., et al. Revisiting structural Lazo carpentry: geometry, mechanics, and construction. Architecture, Structures and Construction. 2025 Jun 31; 5 (1): 24. doi:10.1007/s44150-025-00137-3
Syaefudin E.A., Kholil A., Hakim M., Wulandari D.A., Riyadi, Murtinugraha E. The effect of orientation on tensile strength 3D printing with ABS and PLA materials. J Phys Conf Ser. 2023 Sep 1; 2596 (1): 012002. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2596/1/012002
Kalaiyarasan K., Ranganathan S., Nagarajan K., Balakrishnan R. Influence of print orientation on mechanical characteristics of FDM-printed OBE polymer. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites. 2025 Nov 7. doi:10.1177/07316844251396247
Omer M.A.E., Shaban I.A., Mourad A.H., Hegab H. Advances in interlayer bonding in fused deposition modelling: a comprehensive review. Virtual Phys Prototyp. 2025 Dec 31; 20 (1). doi:10.1080/17452759.2025.2522951
Gao Y., Lalevée J., Simon-Masseron A. An Overview on 3D Printing of Structured Porous Materials and Their Applications. Adv Mater Technol. 2023 Sep 11; 8 (17). doi:10.1002/admt.202300377
Gandhi R., Salmi M., Roy B., Pauli L., Pagliari L., Concli F. Mechanical and fatigue performance of multidirectional functionally graded Ti6Al4V scaffolds produced via laser powder bed fusion for orthopedic implants. Mater Des. 2025 Mar; 251: 113725. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2025.113725
Kumar A., Nune K.C., Murr L.E., Misra R.D.K. Biocompatibility and mechanical behaviour of three-dimensional scaffolds for biomedical devices: process–structure–property paradigm. International Materials Reviews. 2016 Jan 29; 61 (1): 20-45. doi:10.1080/09506608.2015.1128310
Gomez-Guevara R., Kamat V., Hamed B.U., Pretell-Mazzini J., Bhansali S., Prasad A. Impact of Temperature and Humidity on the Structural and Biocompatibility of 3D-Printed PLA Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8800963/v1
Shilov S.Y., Rozhkova Y.A., Markova L.N., Tashkinov M.A., Vindokurov I.V., Silberschmidt V.V. Biocompatibility of 3D-Printed PLA, PEEK and PETG: Adhesion of Bone Marrow and Peritoneal Lavage Cells. Polymers (Basel). 2022 Sep 22; 14 (19): 3958. doi:10.3390/polym14193958
Aftab M., Ikram S., Ullah M., Khan N., Naeem M., Khan M.A., et al. Recent Trends and Future Directions in 3D Printing of Biocompatible Polymers. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing. 2025 Apr 14; 9 (4):129. doi:10.3390/jmmp9040129
Chang H.I., Wang Y. Cell Responses to Surface and Architecture of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds. In: Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering - Cells and Biomaterials. InTech; 2011. doi:10.5772/21983
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Iriczalli Cruz-Maya, Rafael Álvarez-Chimal, Janeth Serrano-Bello, Jesús Ángel Arenas-Alatorre, Marco Antonio Álvarez-Pérez.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ODOVTOS - Int. J. Dent. Sc. endorses CC BY-NC-SA
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
Funding data
-
Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Grant numbers DGAPA‑UNAM: PAPIIT program IG200826 -
Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Grant numbers DGAPA‑UNAM: PAPIIT program IN202924.
