Comparison of the Translational Potential of Human Mesenchymal Progenitor Cells from Different Bone Entities for Autologous 3D Bioprinted Bone Grafts

Abstract

Reconstruction of segmental bone defects by autologous bone grafting is still the standard of care but presents challenges including anatomical availability and potential donor site morbidity. The process of 3D bioprinting, the application of 3D printing for direct fabrication of living tissue, opens new possibilities for highly personalized tissue implants, making it an appealing alternative to autologous bone grafts. One of the most crucial hurdles for the clinical application of 3D bioprinting is the choice of a suitable cell source, which should be minimally invasive, with high osteogenic potential, with fast, easy expansion. In this study, mesenchymal progenitor cells were isolated from clinically relevant human bone biopsy sites (explant cultures from alveolar bone, iliac crest and fibula; bone marrow aspirates; and periosteal bone shaving from the mastoid) and 3D bioprinted using projection-based stereolithography. Printed constructs were cultivated for 28 days and analyzed regarding their osteogenic potential by assessing viability, mineralization, and gene expression. While viability levels of all cell sources were comparable over the course of the cultivation, cells obtained by periosteal bone shaving showed higher mineralization of the print matrix, with gene expression data suggesting advanced osteogenic differentiation. These results indicate that periosteum-derived cells represent a highly promising cell source for translational bioprinting of bone tissue given their superior osteogenic potential as well as their minimally invasive obtainability.

Influence of Xenogeneic and Alloplastic Carriers for Bone Augmentation on Human Unrestricted Somatic Stem Cells

“…Hydrogels can be 3D-bioprinted and might offer patient-specific augmentative options including growth factors, such as recombinant bone morphogenetic proteins (rhBMPs), in combination with USSCs. Promising results have recently been reported using other 3D scaffolds (i.e., bioprints) for bone augmentation in combination with precursor cells [ 52 , 53 , 54 ].…”

Blends of gelatin and hyaluronic acid stratified by stereolithographic bioprinting approximate cartilaginous matrix gradients

“…The bioink cell suspension was prepared by mixing chondrocytes with different GelMA/HAMA blends. The baseline concentrations of bioinks (GelMA: 5 wt%; HAMA: 2 wt%) were chosen according to previous experiments regarding the viability of cells 31,43,50 . Printing was performed layer by layer, directly onto a carrier membrane connected to a cell culture plate insert (Figure 1D), starting with a layer of 6 mm diameter, followed by 7 mm and 8 mm layers.…”

“…The baseline concentrations of bioinks (GelMA: 5 wt%; HAMA: 2 wt%) were chosen according to previous experiments regarding the viability of cells. 31,43,50 Printing was performed layer by layer, directly onto a carrier membrane connected to a cell culture plate insert (Figure 1D), starting with a layer of 6 mm diameter, followed by 7 mm and 8 mm layers. While the CAD model consisted of disc-shaped, angular layers, each subsequent layer would surround the previous one in the overlapping areas, resulting in a semi-spherical shape without any sharp kinks and a uniform outer edge.…”

Bioengineered Living Bone Grafts—A Concise Review on Bioreactors and Production Techniques In Vitro

“…It is also worth noting that the selection of the suitable cell origin for the bioprinting process guarantees successful clinical implementation of 3D bioprinted living bone grafts. Ambler et al [53] bioprinted 3D constructs with mesenchymal progenitor cells that were isolated from different human bone sites, such as the alveolar bone, iliac crest, fibula, bone marrow, and mastoid. After 28 days of cell culture in vitro, cell viability, gene expression (ALP, COL 1, RUNX2, OCN, and OPN), and ECM mineralization were evaluated.…”