Structure-barrier property relationship of biodegradable poly(butylene succinate) and poly[(butylene succinate)-co-(butylene adipate)] nanocomposites: influence of the rigid amorphous fraction.

Composites composed of polyesters, poly(butylene succinate) (PBS) or poly[(butylene succinate)-co-(butylene adipate)] (PBSA), and 5 wt% of montmorillonite (CNa) or organo-modified montmorillonite (C30B) were melt-processed and transformed into films by either compression-molding or extrusion-calendering. XRD, rheological measurements and TEM images clearly indicated that films containing CNa are microcomposites, while nanocomposites were observed for those containing C30B. Using Flash DSC, it was possible, for the first time, not only to measure the heat capacity step at the glass transition of these two materials in their amorphous state, but also to investigate whether the preparation technique influenced the Rigid Amorphous Fraction (RAF) in our PBS- and PBSA-based nanocomposites. In this work, we have successfully shown the correlation between the microstructure of the films and their barrier properties, and especially the role played by the RAF. Indeed, the lowest permeabilities to gases and to water were determined in the films containing the highest RAF in both PBS- and PBSA-based materials.

3D printed PLGA implants: How the filling density affects drug release.

Different types of ibuprofen-loaded, poly (D,L lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)-based implants were prepared by 3D printing (Droplet Deposition Modeling). The theoretical filling density of the mesh-shaped implants was varied from 10 to 100%. Drug release was measured in agarose gels and in well agitated phosphate buffer pH 7.4. The key properties of the implants (and dynamic changes thereof upon exposure to the release media) were monitored using gravimetric measurements, optical microscopy, Differential Scanning Calorimetry, Gel Permeation Chromatography, and Scanning Electron Microscopy. Interestingly, drug release was similar for implants with 10 and 30% filling density, irrespective of the experimental set-up. In contrast, implants with 100% filling density showed slower release kinetics, and the shape of the release curve was altered in agarose gels. These observations could be explained by the existence (or absence) of a continuous aqueous phase between the polymeric filaments and the "orchestrating role" of substantial system swelling for the control of drug release. At lower filling densities, it is sufficient for the drug to be released from a single filament. In contrast, at high filling densities, the ensemble of filaments acts as a much larger (more or less homogeneous) polymeric matrix, and the average diffusion pathway to be overcome by the drug is much longer. Agarose gel (mimicking living tissue) hinders substantial PLGA swelling and delays the onset of the final rapid drug release phase. This improved mechanistic understanding of the control of drug release from PLGA-based 3D printed implants can help to facilitate the optimization of this type of advanced drug delivery systems.

3D printed PLGA implants: APF DDM vs. FDM.

3D Printing offers a considerable potential for personalized medicines. This is especially true for customized biodegradable implants, matching the specific needs of each patient. Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) is frequently used as matrix former in biodegradable implants. However, yet relatively little is known on the technologies, which can be used for the 3D printing of PLGA implants. The aim of this study was to compare: (i) Arburg Plastic Freeforming Droplet Deposition Modeling (APF DDM), and (ii) Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) to print mesh-shaped, ibuprofen-loaded PLGA implants. During APF DDM, individual drug-polymer droplets are deposited, fusing together to form filaments, which build up the implants. During FDM, continuous drug-polymer filaments are deposited to form the meshes. The implants were thoroughly characterized before and after exposure to phosphate buffer pH 7.4 using optical and scanning electron microscopy, GPC, DSC, drug release measurements and monitoring dynamic changes in the systems' dry & wet mass and pH of the bulk fluid. Interestingly, the mesh structures were significantly different, although the device design (composition & theoretical geometry) were the same. This could be explained by the fact that the deposition of individual droplets during APF DDM led to curved and rather thick filaments, resulting in a much lower mesh porosity. In contrast, FDM printing generated straight and thinner filaments: The open spaces between them were much larger and allowed convective mass transport during drug release. Consequently, most of the drug was already released after 4 d, when substantial PLGA set on. In the case of APF DDM printed implants, most of the drug was still entrapped at that time point and substantial polymer swelling transformed the meshes into more or less continuous PLGA gels. Hence, the diffusion pathways became much longer and ibuprofen release was controlled over 2 weeks.