Simulation of cortico-cancellous bone structure by 3D printing of bilayer calcium phosphate-based scaffolds

Almela, Thafar; Brook, Ian M.; Khoshroo, Kimia; Rasoulianboroujeni, Morteza; Fahimipour, Farahnaz; Tahriri, Mohammadreza; Dashtimoghadam, Erfan; El‐Awa, A.; Tayebi, Lobat; Moharamzadeh, Keyvan

doi:10.1016/j.bprint.2017.04.001

Cited by 51 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(53,54) Several examples exist in the literature where calcium phosphates have been printed in a vertical gradient with camphene,(55) poly(propylene fumarate),(56) and other scaffold materials(23) to generate biochemical distributions and physical architectures that mimic features of natural bone tissue – e.g., the transition from cortical to cancellous bone. (57) Literature is much sparser, however, on the creation of calcium phosphate gradients in combination with growth factor gradients. Ahlfeld et al showed one case in which a two-channel plotting system was used to fabricate biphasic scaffolds containing a calcium phosphate cement (CPC) component and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-loaded hydrogel component.…”

Section: Fabricating Spatiotemporal Growth Factor Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal control of growth factors in three-dimensional printed scaffolds

Bittner

Guo

2018

Bioprinting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional printing (3DP) has enabled the fabrication of tissue engineering scaffolds that recapitulate the physical, architectural, and biochemical cues of native tissue matrix more effectively than ever before. One key component of biomimetic scaffold fabrication is the patterning of growth factors, whose spatial distribution and temporal release profile should ideally match that seen in native tissue development. Tissue engineers have made significant progress in improving the degree of spatiotemporal control over which growth factors are presented within 3DP scaffolds. However, significant limitations remain in terms in pattern resolution, the fabrication of true gradients, temporal control of growth factor release, the maintenance of growth factor distributions against diffusion, and more. This review summarizes several key areas for advancement of the field in terms of improving spatiotemporal control over growth factor presentation, and additionally highlights several major tissues of interest that have been targeted by 3DP growth factor patterning strategies.

show abstract

Section: Fabricating Spatiotemporal Growth Factor Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal control of growth factors in three-dimensional printed scaffolds

Bittner

Guo

2018

Bioprinting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whatever process is used to fabricate a scaffold, it must be able to process bioresorbable and biodegradable materials so that they can form a scaffold with a large surface area and high porosity. 3-D printing (3-DP) and fused deposition modeling (FDM) are two examples of rapid prototyping technologies that allow for the creation of scaffolds that are porous and are able to copy living tissue's microstructure [23]. 3-DP allows for the processing of bioresorbable scaffolds for applications relating to tissue engineering specifically [74].…”

Section: Scaffoldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In regard to tissue engineering of a particular cartilage, although implanting artificial matrices, growth factors, perichondrium, and periosteum can initiate the formation of cartilaginous tissue in osteochondral and chondral defects in synovial fluids, the results vary considerably from patient to patient [16]. A successful scaffold is one that fits the anatomical defects defined from clinical imaging data, while also having a design that is porous and that can balance load bearing and biofactor delivery requirements [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. For these designs, the global image design database is created from a computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) image of a patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cartilage and facial muscle tissue engineering and regeneration: a mini review

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cartilage and facial muscle tissue provide basic yet vital functions for homeostasis throughout the body, making human survival and function highly dependent upon these somatic components. When cartilage and facial muscle tissues are harmed or completely destroyed due to disease, trauma, or any other degenerative process, homeostasis and basic body functions consequently become negatively affected. Although most cartilage and cells can regenerate themselves after any form of the aforementioned degenerative disease or trauma, the highly specific characteristics of facial muscles and the specific structures of the cells and tissues required for the proper function cannot be exactly replicated by the body itself. Thus, some form of cartilage and bone tissue engineering is necessary for proper regeneration and function. The use of progenitor cells for this purpose would be very beneficial due to their highly adaptable capabilities, as well as their ability to utilize a high diffusion rate, making them ideal for the specific nature and functions of cartilage and facial muscle tissue. Going along with this, once the progenitor cells are obtained, applying them to a scaffold within the oral cavity in the affected location allows them to adapt to the environment and create cartilage or facial muscle tissue that is specific to the form and function of the area. The principal function of the cartilage and tissue is vascularization, which requires a specific form that allows them to aid the proper flow of bodily functions related to the oral cavity such as oxygen flow and removal of waste. Facial muscle is also very thin, making its reproduction much more possible. Taking all these into consideration, this review aims to highlight and expand upon the primary benefits of the cartilage and facial muscle tissue engineering and regeneration, focusing on how these processes are performed outside of and within the body.

show abstract

“…Historical progress of this field was heavily dependent upon cell‐free printing using hard bone‐like materials like ceramics (HA/β‐tricalcium phosphate), bioglass‐ceramic composites and polymers (PCL), which will not be discussed here as many good reviews have already covered those aspects (Bose, Vahabzadeh, & Bandyopadhyay, ; Jariwala et al, ; Li, Chen, Fan, & Zhou, ; Wen et al, ). A major limitation is that such ceramic‐based scaffolds (some of which have been listed in Figure ) require post‐fabrication processing such as high temperature sintering or dissolution in organic solvents (Almela et al, ; Roohani‐Esfahani, Newman, & Zreiqat, ) to confer stability on constructs and hence do not support live‐cell printing. Such scaffolds only allow top seeding of cells, which often leads to non‐uniform cell distribution and heterogeneous differentiation, hence failing to imitate true in vivo conditions (Holmes et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Abbreviations: PCL, poly(caprolactone); PLA, polylactic acid; GelMA, gelatin methacryloyl; PEGDA, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate; hMSCs, human mesenchymal stem cells; hAFSCs, human amniotic fluidderived stem cells; HA, hydroxyapatite; HUVECs, human umbilical vein endothelial cells; BMP, bone morphogenetic protein; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; β-TCP, beta tricalcium phosphate, TGF, transforming growth factor, RGD, Arg-Gly-Asp [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] those aspects (Bose, Vahabzadeh, & Bandyopadhyay, 2013;Jariwala et al, 2015;Li, Chen, Fan, & Zhou, 2016;Wen et al, 2017). A major limitation is that such ceramic-based scaffolds (some of which have been listed in Figure 1) require post-fabrication processing such as high temperature sintering or dissolution in organic solvents (Almela et al, 2017;Roohani-Esfahani, Newman, & Zreiqat, 2016) to confer stability on constructs and hence do not support live-cell printing.…”

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

Simulation of cortico-cancellous bone structure by 3D printing of bilayer calcium phosphate-based scaffolds

Cited by 51 publications

References 34 publications

Spatiotemporal control of growth factors in three-dimensional printed scaffolds

Spatiotemporal control of growth factors in three-dimensional printed scaffolds

Cartilage and facial muscle tissue engineering and regeneration: a mini review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About