Tissue Engineering: Polymer Fiber Scaffolds for Bone and Cartilage Tissue Engineering (Adv. Funct. Mater. 36/2019)

Abstract

In article number 1903279, Jin Zhang, Jianlin Zuo, Jun Zou, Jianxun Ding, and co‐workers summarize the advances in the preparation, composition, and characteristics of polymer fibers, as well as their applications in bone and cartilage tissue engineering, and propose potential challenges and opportunities.

Three-Dimensional Culture Promotes the Differentiation of Human Dental Pulp Mesenchymal Stem Cells Into Insulin-Producing Cells for Improving the Diabetes Therapy

“…In the study of stem cell differentiation, 3D cell culture is more capable of mimicking the microenvironment of cell growth in vivo than 2D cell culture. The natural contact between cells and cells, between cells and ECM can regulate the development process and promote the formation of artificial organs and Organizational (Zhang et al, 2019a;Zhang et al, 2019b); 3D cell culture can perfectly reproduce the process of embryo development in vivo, and facilitate the further study of its molecular mechanism (Gelain et al, 2006;Albrecht et al, 2006). In the 3D microenvironment, human embryonic stem cells are more efficiently differentiated into pancreatic endocrine cells, more pronounced response to glucose (Wang et al, 2017).…”

Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics

“…Their biodegradation induces the release of low acidic byproducts for PCL and nontoxic byproducts for PLA and PLGA. [ 23,46,47 ] They are also biocompatible and osteoconductive. [ 21 ] They have good mechanical properties with a compressive strength of the order of 2–39 MPa as compared to the native bone compressive strength (2–12 MPa) and compressive modulus (52–318 MPa), these values depending on the scaffold porosity, [ 22,48–50 ] are radiolucent, lightweight, and histocompatible, which is an important criterion for preclinical studies (Table 1).…”

“…[ 21 ] They have good mechanical properties with a compressive strength of the order of 2–39 MPa as compared to the native bone compressive strength (2–12 MPa) and compressive modulus (52–318 MPa), these values depending on the scaffold porosity, [ 22,48–50 ] are radiolucent, lightweight, and histocompatible, which is an important criterion for preclinical studies (Table 1). [ 23,24 ] However, they are not highly biomimetic when used alone since they are unable to induce bone formation by themselves (Table 1). These materials are often used in cranio‐maxillofacial bone reconstruction (Figure 1), [ 51,52 ] and some preclinical studies look at their application in load‐bearing sites such as femoral defects or tibiae defects.…”

“…[ 72 ] However, ceramics are very brittle, and therefore not appropriate for load‐bearing applications despite their high compressive strength which ranges from 3–18 MPa (Table 1). [ 22,23,73 ] Moreover, they are not easy to image and to distinguish from the native bone, due to their similar composition and density to native bones, which also complicates the histological analysis (Table 1). [ 74 ] Usually, ceramics are used to repair all kinds of defects especially in the craniofacial region (Figure 1).…”

“…Several groups have already reviewed the different types of AM machines and materials that can be used for bone regeneration. [ 11,21–29 ] Extrusion‐based, powder‐based and vat photopolymerization AM techniques allow to print polymers, ceramics, and metals that are biocompatible and sometimes biodegradable. However, although AM has already been widely used in research in the biomedical field, still very few products are available on the market to date.…”