Effect of calcium phosphate coating and rhBMP-2 on bone regeneration in rabbit calvaria using poly(propylene fumarate) scaffolds

Dadsetan, Mahrokh; Guda, Teja; Runge, M. Brett; Mijares, Dindo Q.; LeGeros, Racquel Z.; LeGeros, John P.; Silliman, David T.; Lu, Lichun; Wenke, Joseph C.; Baer, Pamela R. Brown; Yaszemski, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2014.12.024

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These coatings, which include calcium phosphate, provide a bone-like mineral matrix that simulates the bone formation: this environment is necessary osteoblast attachment and M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT may drive osteogenic differentiation [15,16]. Various techniques, including magnetron sputtering, plasma spray methods, and physical vapor deposition, can be used to place a thin coat of HA on Ti materials [17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a biointegrated mandibular reconstruction device consisting of bone compatible titanium fiber mesh scaffold

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a biointegrated mandibular reconstruction device consisting of bone compatible titanium fiber mesh scaffold

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Fused Deposition Modeling was the most frequently used printing technology as it was employed in 38 studies (Figure ) . Low‐temperature deposition manufacturing was used in 11 studies, selective laser sintering in seven studies, Stereolitography in three studies …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D printed polymer–mineral composite biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: Fabrication and characterization

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applications in additive manufacturing technologies for bone tissue engineering applications requires the development of new biomaterials formulations. Different three‐dimensional (3D) printing technologies can be used and polymers are commonly employed to fabricate 3D printed bone scaffolds. However, these materials used alone do not possess an effective osteopromotive potential for bone regeneration. A growing number of studies report the combination of polymers with minerals in order to improve their bioactivity. This review exposes the state‐of‐the‐art of existing 3D printed composite biomaterials combining polymers and minerals for bone tissue engineering. Characterization techniques to assess scaffold properties are also discussed. Several parameters must be considered to fabricate a 3D printed material for bone repair (3D printing method, type of polymer/mineral combination and ratio) because all of them affect final properties of the material. Each polymer and mineral has its own advantages and drawbacks and numerous composites are described in the literature. Each component of these composite materials brings specific properties and their combination can improve the biological integration of the 3D printed scaffold. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B:2579–2595, 2019.

show abstract

“…In a recent study, scaffolds created using PPF stereolithography were coated with either β-TCP, synthetic bone mineral (SBM) or biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) along with bone morphogenetic protein (BMP-2) and studied in vitro and in vivo. 75 A rabbit model showed bone regeneration throughout the scaffolds with both ingrowth of native bone from the edges and generation of bone at locations on the interior of the scaffold for all three coatings. There was no sign of a persistent inflammatory response in any of the investigated scaffolds indicating no problems with residual solvents.…”

Section: Inks: 3d Printable Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Designing Biomaterials for 3D Printing

Guvendiren

Molde

Soares

et al. 2016

ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.

609

496

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is becoming an increasingly common technique to fabricate scaffolds and devices for tissue engineering applications. This is due to the potential of 3D printing to provide patient-specific designs, high structural complexity, rapid on-demand fabrication at a low-cost. One of the major bottlenecks that limits the widespread acceptance of 3D printing in biomanufacturing is the lack of diversity in “biomaterial inks”. Printability of a biomaterial is determined by the printing technique. Although a wide range of biomaterial inks including polymers, ceramics, hydrogels and composites have been developed, the field is still struggling with processing of these materials into self-supporting devices with tunable mechanics, degradation, and bioactivity. This review aims to highlight the past and recent advances in biomaterial ink development and design considerations moving forward. A brief overview of 3D printing technologies focusing on ink design parameters is also included.

show abstract

Effect of calcium phosphate coating and rhBMP-2 on bone regeneration in rabbit calvaria using poly(propylene fumarate) scaffolds

Cited by 76 publications

References 55 publications

Development of a biointegrated mandibular reconstruction device consisting of bone compatible titanium fiber mesh scaffold

Development of a biointegrated mandibular reconstruction device consisting of bone compatible titanium fiber mesh scaffold

3D printed polymer–mineral composite biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: Fabrication and characterization

Designing Biomaterials for 3D Printing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About