Integrating three-dimensional printing and nanotechnology for musculoskeletal regeneration

Current therapies for nerve regeneration within injured tissues have had limited success due to complicated neural anatomy and inhibitory barriers in situ. Recent advancements in 3D bioprinting technologies have enabled researchers to develop novel 3D scaffolds with complex architectures in an effort to mitigate the challenges that beset reliable and defined neural tissue regeneration. Among several possible neuroregenerative treatment approaches that are being explored today, 3D bioprinted scaffolds have the unique advantage of being highly modifiable, which promotes greater resemblance to the native biological architecture of in vivo systems. This high architectural similarity between printed constructs and in vivo structures is thought to facilitate a greater capacity for repair of damaged nerve tissues. In this review, advances of several 3D bioprinting methods are introduced, including laser bioprinting, inkjet bioprinting, and extrusion‐based printing. In addition, the emergence of 4D printing is discussed, which adds a dimension of transformation over time to traditional 3D printing. Finally, an overview of emerging trends in advanced bioprinting materials is provided and their therapeutic potential for application in neural tissue regeneration is evaluated in both the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system.

show abstract

Section: Biomaterials and 3d Printing For Neural Tissue Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to fabricate scaffold designs with overhanging features, removable supporting structures are deposited alongside the scaffold for support. Figure 11 shows a general overview of the FDM extrusion and deposition system with printed resultant 3D scaffolds …”

Section: Biomaterials and 3d Printing For Neural Tissue Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in 3D Bioprinting for Neural Tissue Engineering

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They mimic the structure and function of the host tissue, which can be used as medical implants or as models in drug testing assays (Sears et al, 2016 ). Several additive manufacturing techniques adapted for tissue engineering applications have been developed (Sears et al, 2016 ; Nowicki et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Nanomaterials In 3d Printingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Producing 3D Biomimetic Nanomaterials for Musculoskeletal System Regeneration

Casanellas

García-Lizarribar

Lagunas

et al. 2018

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human musculoskeletal system is comprised mainly of connective tissues such as cartilage, tendon, ligaments, skeletal muscle, and skeletal bone. These tissues support the structure of the body, hold and protect the organs, and are responsible of movement. Since it is subjected to continuous strain, the musculoskeletal system is prone to injury by excessive loading forces or aging, whereas currently available treatments are usually invasive and not always effective. Most of the musculoskeletal injuries require surgical intervention facing a limited post-surgery tissue regeneration, especially for widespread lesions. Therefore, many tissue engineering approaches have been developed tackling musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. Materials are designed to meet the chemical and mechanical requirements of the native tissue three-dimensional (3D) environment, thus facilitating implant integration while providing a good reabsorption rate. With biological systems operating at the nanoscale, nanoengineered materials have been developed to support and promote regeneration at the interprotein communication level. Such materials call for a great precision and architectural control in the production process fostering the development of new fabrication techniques. In this mini review, we would like to summarize the most recent advances in 3D nanoengineered biomaterials for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration, with especial emphasis on the different techniques used to produce them.

show abstract

“…Hydrogels containing cell-adhesive motifs and ECM components make them effective bioinks for engineering tissue equivalents in vitro (Duarte Campos et al, 2015;Murphy, Skardal, & Atala, 2012;Pati et al, 2014). Cells respond to nanofeatures in ways similar to in vivo physiological processes due to their striking resemblance to the ECM of human tissues (Holmes, Bulusu, Plesniak, & Zhang, 2016;Loiselle et al, 2013;Nowicki, Castro, Rao, Plesniak, & Zhang, 2017). Therefore, specific nanotopographies (in the range of 60-80 nm) have been fabricated on 3D bioprinted scaffolds to improve cellular functions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in three‐dimensional bioprinting of bone: Progress and challenges

Midha

Dalela

Sybil

et al. 2019

J Tissue Eng Regen Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several attempts have been made to engineer a viable three‐dimensional (3D) bone tissue equivalent using conventional tissue engineering strategies, but with limited clinical success. Using 3D bioprinting technology, scientists have developed functional prototypes of clinically relevant and mechanically robust bone with a functional bone marrow. Although the field is in its infancy, it has shown immense potential in the field of bone tissue engineering by re‐establishing the 3D dynamic micro‐environment of the native bone. Inspite of their in vitro success, maintaining the viability and differentiation potential of such cell‐laden constructs overtime, and their subsequent preclinical testing in terms of stability, mechanical loading, immune responses, and osseointegrative potential still needs to be explored. Progress is slow due to several challenges such as but not limited to the choice of ink used for cell encapsulation, optimal cell source, bioprinting method suitable for replicating the heterogeneous tissues and organs, and so on. Here, we summarize the recent advancements in bioprinting of bone, their limitations, challenges, and strategies for future improvisations. The generated knowledge will provide deep insights on our current understanding of the cellular interactions with the hydrogel matrices and help to unravel new methodologies for facilitating precisely regulated stem cell behaviour.

show abstract

Integrating three-dimensional printing and nanotechnology for musculoskeletal regeneration

Cited by 22 publications

References 84 publications

Advances in 3D Bioprinting for Neural Tissue Engineering

Advances in 3D Bioprinting for Neural Tissue Engineering

Producing 3D Biomimetic Nanomaterials for Musculoskeletal System Regeneration

Advances in three‐dimensional bioprinting of bone: Progress and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About