Porous 3D Printed Scaffolds For Guided Bone Regeneration In a Rat Calvarial Defect Model

Dang, Hoang Phuc; Vaquette, Cédryck; Shabab, Tara; Pérez, Román A.; Yang, Ying; Dargaville, Tim R.; Shafiee, Abbas; Tran, Phong A.

doi:10.1016/j.apmt.2020.100706

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the BP/GelMA‐bioprinted construct can be easily handled using surgical tweezers and its relative flexibility will enable excellent dimensional adaptation to a bone defect. In addition, the porous nature of the bioprinted scaffold will result in enhanced blood clot stabilization as previously shown [ 76 ] for the initiation of the healing cascade.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Patient‐Specific Bone Particles Bioprinting for Bone Tissue Engineering

Ratheesh

Vaquette

Xiao

2020

Adv Healthcare Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although bioinks with both high printability and shape fidelity while maintaining high cell viability are developed, the biofunctionality of the resulting bioprinted construct is often overlooked. To address this, a methacrylated gelatin (GelMA)-based bioink biofunctionalized with bone particles (BPs) is developed as a personalized treatment strategy for bone regeneration. The bioink consists of incorporating BPs of various sizes (0-500 µm) in GelMA at various concentrations (ranging from 5 to 15% w/v). The printability of the bioink is systematically investigated and it is demonstrated that a 15% w/v BP-loading results in high print quality for 10% and 12.5% GelMA concentrations. Rheological evaluation reveals a strong shear thinning behavior essential for printing and a high gel strength in bioink with 15% w/v 0-500 µm BPs for both GelMA concentrations. In addition, the printability of the bioink and the metabolic activity of the resulting scaffolds are dependent on both the concentration of hydrogel and size of the BPs. Importantly, the cells initially contained in the BPs are able to migrate and colonize the bioprinted scaffold while maintaining their capacity to express early osteogenic markers. This study demonstrates the feasibility of bioprinted viable BPs and may have some potential for chairside clinical translation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Patient‐Specific Bone Particles Bioprinting for Bone Tissue Engineering

Ratheesh

Vaquette

Xiao

2020

Adv Healthcare Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerning in vitro studies, the included articles evaluated mesenchymal stem cells, 8,13,16,20,29,30,34,44,45,47,48,51 52,53,55,62,63,67,72,77,79,87,89,90,92,101,105,109 osteoblasts, 31,33,35,37,46,49,54, 60,62,71,78,104–108 fibroblasts, 39 bone tumoral cells, 15,38,42,50,53,56,89,103 monocyte/macrophage cells line, 70,103 and endothelial cells 55,77,90 . The mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow, 8,20,29,34,45,47,55,63,67,72,77,87,89,101,105 adipose, 16,34,62 dental pulp, 13,79 periodontal ligament, 30 tonsil, 51 and Wharton's Jelly tissue 44,48,52,53,90,109 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Fabrication of Biomaterials for Surgical Procedures in Dentistry: A Narrative Review

Özcan

Magini

Volpato

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To screen and critically appraise available literature regarding additive manufacturing technologies for bone graft material fabrication in dentistry. Material and Methods PubMed and Scopus were searched up to May 2021. Studies reporting the additive manufacturing techniques to manufacture scaffolds for intraoral bone defect reconstruction were considered eligible. A narrative review was synthesized to discuss the techniques for bone graft material fabrication in dentistry and the biomaterials used. Results The databases search resulted in 933 articles. After removing duplicate articles (128 articles), the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles (805 articles) were evaluated. A total of 89 articles were included in this review. Reading these articles, 5 categories of additive manufacturing techniques were identified: material jetting, powder bed fusion, vat photopolymerization, binder jetting, and material extrusion. Conclusions Additive manufacturing technologies for bone graft material fabrication in dentistry, especially 3D bioprinting approaches, have been successfully used to fabricate bone graft material with distinct compositions.

show abstract

“…The challenge of using hydrogels for the fabrication of the musculoskeletal system via 3D bioprinting should be seriously considered since a stiff and coherent hydrogel-based construct would be required for implantation in the human body [133]. Accordingly, different strategies have been developed to enhance the strength of hydrogel-based bioprinted constructs, including utilizing toughened hydrogels and reinforcement of printed hydrogels with thermoplastic polymers [134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] or bioceramics [142][143][144][145], nanofibers, nanoparticle [146][147][148][149], microparticles, and microcarriers [150,151]. Moreover, the crosslinking of bioprinted constructs by UV-rays and chemical agents does not only improve their mechanical properties, but it could also increase the stiffness, longevity, and thermal stability of 3D printed constructs [128,152,153].…”

Section: Biomaterials Science Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%