A review of materials, fabrication methods, and strategies used to enhance bone regeneration in engineered bone tissues

Stevens, Brian; Yong-ming, Yang; Mohandas, Arunesh; Stucker, Brent; Nguyen, Kytai T.

doi:10.1002/jbm.b.30962

Cited by 287 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 111 publications

(143 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A large number of scaffold fabrication techniques are being investigated for applications in tissue engineering of the bone [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Average pore size, porosity, pore interconnectivity, and mechanical properties of the scaffold will vary when comparing different techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication and Characterization of Three-Dimensional Electrospun Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Andric

Taylor

Whittington

et al. 2015

Regen. Eng. Transl. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are 600,000 bone-grafting procedures performed annually as a result of significant skeletal loss and bone deficiencies. This is an increasing worldwide medical issue as the average life expectancy increases 2-3 % annually. The current standards for bone treatment are autografts and allografts; both of which have drawbacks. Therefore, there is a need for alternative bone graft substitutes such as tissue-engineered grafts. Tissue engineering has emerged as a promising option for bone treatments by using biological or synthetic scaffolds to promote tissue regeneration. The advantages of this treatment include abundant supply and customizable features. The majority of scaffold fabrication techniques used in research focuses on mimicking the porous trabecular bone structure. A major characteristic of optimal scaffold integration and viability is vascularization, which is housed within the osteon canal of the cortical bone. Namely, there is a lack of tissueengineered scaffolds for bone regeneration that mimic both trabecular and cortical bone structures. In this study, we combined two previously fabricated structures, sintered electrospun sheets and individual osteon-like scaffolds, to create scaffolds that mimic dual structural organization of the native bone with cortical and trabecular regions. Scaffolds were successfully mineralized in 10× simulated body fluid (SBF) up to 48 h with enhanced mineral distribution throughout the scaffolds. Mineralization for 24 h significantly increased mechanical properties of the scaffolds. In vitro studies performed over 28 days with mouse-pre-osteoblastic cells, MC3T3-E1s, proved that the mineralized scaffolds promoted cellular attachment, proliferation, and early stages of osteoblastic differentiation in comparison to the non-mineralized scaffolds. The implications of this study lead to the advancement of tissue-engineered mineralized trabecular and cortical bone scaffolds. Lay SummaryThe use of tissue-engineered scaffolds to harness a patients' own bone regenerative properties following traumatic bone loss has emerged as an alternative to current bone-grafting procedures. In this manuscript, the development and characterization process of a synthetic scaffold which mimics both the porous trabecular bone structure and dense cortical bone structure is discussed. Qualitative analysis confirmed the biomimetic porous structure necessary for nutrient transport and cellular infiltration and the cortical canal structure to house vascularization. Various mineralization techniques were investigated to determine the optimal mechanical properties. The scaffold also exhibited the ability to promote osteoblastic cellular attachment and proliferation. The mineral content deposited onto the scaffold led to an increase in osteoblastic behavior of the attached cells; suggesting early stages of osteogenesis. The results of this manuscript indicate the potential of utilizing a tissue-engineering scaffold as a promising treatment for bone tissue regeneration applications.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication and Characterization of Three-Dimensional Electrospun Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Andric

Taylor

Whittington

et al. 2015

Regen. Eng. Transl. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a workpath from patient radiological images to implant CAD software to a 3D printer is extremely efficient. These methods can be used for the preparation of patient-specific implants for use in research and/or clinical applications [85][86][87][88][89]. The primary restrictions are the requisite expertise, access to implant CAD software, access to an appropriate 3D printer, and access to FDA-approved, 3D printable, implant material.…”

Section: Printing (Additive Manufacture)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential Impact of Bone Tissue Engineering in the Clinic

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone tissue engineering (BTE) intends to restore structural support for movement and mineral homeostasis, and assist in hematopoiesis and the protective functions of bone in traumatic, degenerative, cancer, or congenital malformation. While much effort has been put into BTE, very little of this research has been translated to the clinic. In this review, we discuss current regenerative medicine and restorative strategies that utilize tissue engineering approaches to address bone defects within a clinical setting. These approaches involve the primary components of tissue engineering: cells, growth factors and biomaterials discussed briefly in light of their clinical relevance. This review also presents upcoming advanced approaches for BTE applications and suggests a probable workpath for translation from the laboratory to the clinic.

show abstract

“…Although these kinds of materials are commercially available under several different trademarks, only a few defects are so far repaired using synthetic bone substitutes in clinical practice, in ca. 10% of cases (Stevens et al, 2008). Table 1 shows different types of materials that are employed as bone substitutes.…”

Section: Clinical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%