Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Materials Science

ISSN 2095-025X

ISSN 2095-0268(Online)

CN 11-5985/TB

Postal Subscription Code 80-974

2018 Impact Factor: 1.701

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Mater. Sci.    2023, Vol. 17 Issue (2) : 230644    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11706-023-0644-x
REVIEW ARTICLE
Three-dimensional printing of biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: a review
Ahmed El-Fiqi()
Glass Research Department, Advanced Materials Technology and Mineral Resources Research Institute, National Research Centre, Cairo 12622, Egypt
 Download: PDF(32223 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Processing biomaterials into porous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering is a critical and a key step in defining and controlling their physicochemical, mechanical, and biological properties. Biomaterials such as polymers are commonly processed into porous scaffolds using conventional processing techniques, e.g., salt leaching. However, these traditional techniques have shown unavoidable limitations and several shortcomings. For instance, tissue-engineered porous scaffolds with a complex three-dimensional (3D) geometric architecture mimicking the complexity of the extracellular matrix of native tissues and with the ability to fit into irregular tissue defects cannot be produced using the conventional processing techniques. 3D printing has recently emerged as an advanced processing technology that enables the processing of biomaterials into 3D porous scaffolds with highly complex architectures and tunable shapes to precisely fit into irregular and complex tissue defects. 3D printing provides computer-based layer-by-layer additive manufacturing processes of highly precise and complex 3D structures with well-defined porosity and controlled mechanical properties in a highly reproducible manner. Furthermore, 3D printing technology provides an accurate patient-specific tissue defect model and enables the fabrication of a patient-specific tissue-engineered porous scaffold with pre-customized properties.
Keywords 3D printing      biomaterial ink      printability      3D printing technique      3D printed scaffold      bone tissue engineering     
Corresponding Author(s): Ahmed El-Fiqi   
Issue Date: 26 April 2023
 Cite this article:   
Ahmed El-Fiqi. Three-dimensional printing of biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: a review[J]. Front. Mater. Sci., 2023, 17(2): 230644.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/foms/EN/10.1007/s11706-023-0644-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/foms/EN/Y2023/V17/I2/230644
Fig.1  (a)(b)(c) Illustrative diagrams for representative conventional techniques used in biomaterials processing into porous scaffolds. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [22] (Copyright 2021, Frontiers). (d) Schematic illustrations of electrospinning technique (this technique is limited to production of fibrous mats, i.e., 2D fibrous scaffolds, with limited thickness [23]). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [24] (Copyright 2017, John Wiley and Sons).
Manufacturing methodBenefitsPotential limitations
Solvent casting/particulate leachingRelatively simple technique that allows creation of scaffolds with regular porosity, controlled composition and pore size? Use of organic solvents precludes cells and biomolecules being included directly in scaffolds
? Difficult to control pore shape and interconnectivity
? Limited thickness of structures and mechanical properties achievable
Gas foamingEliminates use of chemical solvents? High pressures involved prohibits inclusion of cells and bioactive molecules directly into scaffolds
? Temperature labile materials may be denatured during compression moulding step
? Difficult to control pore sizes and ensure interconnectivity
Emulsification freeze-dryingDoes not require use of solid porogen? Requires use of organic solvents
? Small pore size
? Porosity often irregular
? Long processing time
Phase separation? Eliminates leaching step of porogen? Small pore sizes limit its use
? Can be combined with other techniques easily? Use of organic solvents inhibits use of bioactive molecules or cells during scaffold fabrication
Electrospinning? Creates scaffolds with large surface area for cell attachment? Organic solvents may be required, which can be harmful to cells
? Limited mechanical properties
? Simple and inexpensive technique? Difficult to incorporate precise microarchitecture into constructs
Tab.1  Limitations of conventional processing techniques (reproduced with permission from Ref. [12], Copyright 2018, Elsevier)
Fig.2  Conventional processing routes used for the production of porous ceramic scaffolds: (a) replica; (b) sacrificial template; (c) direct foaming. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [41] (Copyright 2006, John Wiley and Sons).
TechniqueAdvantagesDisadvantages
Foaming methods (general)Allows manufacturing of both closed and open-cell foams; good versatility of final part shapes, as the solution can be cast in molds without additional machiningDifficulty in achieving high interconnectivity; non-porous external surface
H2O2 foamingSimpleLow porosity control, laminar pore structure with poor 3D interconnection
Sol-gel foamingHierarchical structure can be obtained (macroporous scaffold combined with ordered mesoporous texture)Need for a high degree of control of the foaming step
In situ polymerization of organic monomer (gel-cast foaming)Highly porous ceramic; high-strength properties due to the less flawed structure and dense struts and walls producedLow pore interconnectivity
Organic phase burningout/space holderHigh mechanical strengthDifficult to obtain a homogeneous distribution of pores; poor interconnectivity
Sponge replicationReticulated pen-cell material; applicable to any ceramic material that can be dispersed into a suspension; no toxic chemicals neededMechanical properties might be poor
Tab.2  Comparison of conventional processing methods for bioceramic and bioglass porous scaffolds (reproduced with permission from Ref. [42], Copyright 2015, Frontiers)
Fig.3  Illustrative design of a biomaterial 3D printer (left) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [46], Copyright 2021, John Wiley and Sons). 3D printed porous scaffolds with well controlled porosity and pore size (right) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [47], Copyright 2022, The American Chemical Society).
Fig.4  Exemplary images of 3D printed patient-specific porous scaffolds with the same shape as the bone tissue defects: bioceramic (upper left) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [21], Copyright 2021, Elsevier); biopoymer (upper right) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [8], Copyright 2019, Elsevier); bioglass (lower panel) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [48], Copyright 2012, Elsevier).
Fig.5  3D printing techniques common for processing of biomaterials into 3D printed porous scaffolds. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [49] (Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons).
Fig.6  Parameters and variables affecting 3D printing techniques. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [50] (Copyright 2020, Springer Nature).
3D printing techniqueTypical materialResolutionAdvantagesShortcomings
SortMethod
Liquid-based 3D printingStereolithography (SLA)Photo-curable polymer resins50–100 μmHigh resolution, smooth surface of fabricated structuresOver-curing, which can cause overhanging parts, oxygen inhibition, brittle printed products
Digital light projection (DLP)Photo-curable polymer resins10–50 μmHigh printing speed, less affected by oxygen inhibition than SLARequiring low viscosity resins, limited mechanical properties of the printed products
Inkjet printing (IJP)Polymers, hydrogels50–300 μmRelatively high printing speed (up to 10000 drops/s), low cost, allowing printing of bioinks containing living cellsLimited materials in a narrow range of viscosity (3.5–12 mPa·s), unable to fabricate large and complex structures
PolyjetPhoto-curable polymer resins with very low viscosity and high surface tension20 μmHigh resolution, good surface quality of printed structures, relatively high printing speed, allowing fabrication of multi-lateral or multicolor objectsVery limited materials choices, expensive
Filament- or paste-based 3D printingFused deposition modelling (FDM)Polymers and their composites in the filament form100–150 μmRobust, low cost, ability to process a variety of materialsSlow printing speed, relatively low dimension precision, requiring high temperature
3D dispensingPolymers, hydrogels, ceramics, and their composites100 μm to millimetersAbility to process a variety of materials in a wide range of viscosity ((6–30)×107 mPa·s), capable of printing bioinks containing living cellsPrinting nozzle clogging, rough surface of products, relatively low printing resolution
Powder-based 3D printingSelective laser sintering (SLS)Polymer powders, ceramic powders, and composite powders50–100 μmRelatively wide range of powder materials, fabrication of complex structuresRequiring high temperature, rough surface of products, low reusability of non-sintered powders
Selective laser melting (SLM)Polymer powders, ceramic powders, metal powders, and composite powders20–100 μmAbility to process metallic materials, near net-shape fabrication, high material utilizationDifficult to control printing, balling, high residual stress, deformation issues for printed parts
Electron beam melting (EBM)Metal powders100–200 μmHigh power electron energy source, faster printing speed than SLMLower resolution and rougher surface as compared to SLM
3D powder binding (3DPB)Polymer powders, ceramic powders, and their composite power100 μmFast, low cost, allowing fabrication of multicolor objectsLow precision, rough surface, and limited mechanical strength of products
Tab.3  Comparison of different 3D printing techniques (reproduced with permission from Ref. [57], Copyright 2021, AIP Publishing)
Fig.7  (a) Rheological properties affecting printability and shape fidelity. Interplay of rheological properties in extrusion-based printing. Key aspects to assess printability in the context of extrusion- and lithography-based 3D printing technologies. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [61] (Copyright 2020, The American Chemical Society). (b) Illustration of a biomaterial ink flowability through the printing needle (i) and the formation of first printed layer of filament on the substrate (ii), and the vertical fusion of two filament layers within the 3D printed scaffold (iii). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [58] (Copyright 2020, Whioce Publishing).
Fig.8  Hierarchical structural organization of the bone tissue. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [44] (Copyright 2021, Elsevier).
Fig.9  Main approaches and different biomaterials used for treatment of bone tissue defects. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [52] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Fig.10  Schematic illustration of bone tissue engineering approaches (upper panel) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [31], Copyright 2021, John Wiley and Sons). Examples of cells, growth factors, and biomaterial scaffolds used in bone tissue engineering (lower panel) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [65], Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Scaffold characteristicDesirable features
Biocompatibility? Non-toxic breakdown products
? Non-inflammatory scaffold components, avoiding immune rejection
Biodegradability? Controlled scaffold degradation which can complement tissue ingrowth whilst maintaining sufficient support
? Degradable by host enzymatic or biological processes
? Allows invading host cells to produce their own extracellular matrix
Bioactivity? Scaffold materials that can interact with and bind to host tissue
? Osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties
? Inclusion of biological cues and growth factors to stimulate cell ingrowth, attachment and differentiation
Scaffold architecture? Interconnected pores allowing diffusion and cell migration
? Microporosity to present a large surface area for cell-scaffold interactions
? Macroporosity to allow cell migration and invasion of vasculature
? Pore size tailored to target tissue and cells
? Sufficient porosity to facilitate cell ingrowth without weakening mechanical properties
? Inbuilt vascular channels to enhance angiogenesis in vivo
Mechanical properties? Compressive elastic and fatigue strength comparable to host tissue allowing cell mechano-regulation to occur and structural integrity to remain in vivo
? Scaffold material that can be readily manipulated in the clinical environment to treat individual patient bone defects
Tab.4  General requirements for biomaterials scaffolds (reproduced with permission from Ref. [12], Copyright 2018, Elsevier)
Fig.11  Main steps involved in 3D printing process (upper panel) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [67], Copyright 2022, Elsevier). An illustrative example of 3D printing process for bone tissue engineering (lower panel) (reproduced with permission from Ref. [68], Copyright 2022, John Wiley and Sons).
Manufacturing materialBenefitsPotential limitations
Polymer? Natural polymers can be derived from extracellular matrix, ensuring high biocompatibility and low toxicity? Natural and synthetic polymers generally lack mechanical properties for load bearing
? Biodegradable? Pathological impurities such as endotoxin that may be present in natural polymers
? Often contain biofunctional molecules on their surface
? Synthetic polymers offer improved control over physical properties? Synthetic polymers are often hydrophobic and lack cell recognition sites
Ceramic? Osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties allow strong integration with host tissue? Hard and brittle when used alone
? Similar composition to host bone mineral content? May display inappropriate degradation/resorption rates, with decline in mechanical properties as a result
? Can be delivered as granules, paste or in an injectable format
Bioactive glass? Osteoconductive, osteoinductive properties? Inherent brittleness
? Adapted into clinical prosthesis already? Difficult to tune resorption rate
? Manipulation of constructs into 3D shapes to treat specific defects is challenging
? Potential for release of toxic metal ions
Metal? Biocompatible? Superior modulus can lead to stress-shielding
? Superior strength? Poor biodegradability may result in further surgery/impairment of tissue ingrowth
? Superior mechanical properties can be advantageous in situations where slow bone growth likely? Secondary release of metal ions may cause local and distal toxicity
Tab.5  Advantages and limitations of common types of biomaterials used in scaffolds fabrication for bone tissue engineering (reproduced with permission from Ref. [12], Copyright 2018, Elsevier)
Fig.12  Representative examples of common types of biomaterials used in scaffolds fabrication for bone tissue engineering. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [69]. Copyright 2019, Elsevier.
Fig.13  (a) Percentages of different 3D printing techniques investigated for bone tissue engineering. (b) Percentages of different tissue engineering applications using 3D printing techniques. (c) Comparison of uses of different 3D printing techniques over time in bone tissue engineering. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [50] (Copyright 2020, Springer-Nature).
Fig.14  Images of the stained histological sections of (a)(a?)(a??) PLGA, (b)(b?)(b??) 30%HA/PLGA, and (c)(c?)(c??) 45%HA/PLGA scaffolds, along with quantitative analyses of (d) the scaffold remains area and (e) the new bone area of the three scaffolds after implantation for 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [123] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Fig.15  (a)(a?)(a??)–(f)(f?)(f??) Magnified images of the edge and central regions of the scaffolds. M represents the scaffold material; B represents the new bone tissue; and the yellow dotted circles indicate the initial defect boundaries. 3D micro-CT reconstructed images of (g) new bone tissue, (h) quantitative analysis of the bone volume/total volume (BV/TV), (i) trabecular number (Tb.N), (j) trabecular separation (Tb.Sp), and (k) trabecular thickness (Tb.Th) of the three scaffolds after implantation for 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [123] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Fig.16  (a) Making of the defect, (b) CT imaging, (c) design of customized scaffold, and (d) 3D printing. (e)(f)(g)(h) SEM images along with photos of in-vivo implanted scaffolds. Histology results of in-vivo study: (i) red color in lower panel, (j) orange color in lower panel, and (k) blue color indicating the new formed bone. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [114] (Copyright 2019, Elsevier).
Fig.17  Illustrative diagram of PEEK scaffolds fabricated by FDM process along with in-vivo animal model for implantation (upper panel). The in-vivo bone regeneration ability in animal model as revealed by histology (lower panel). Red color refers to newly formed bone tissues. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [45] (Copyright 2020, The American Chemical Society).
Fig.18  Diagram of scaffolds preparation method (upper panel). CAD models and in-vivo study (middle and lower panels). Pink color in histology images refers to new formed bone. Yellow color in μCT reconstructed images (see the lower panel) refers to new formed bone. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [115] (Copyright 2021, Elsevier).
Fig.19  (a)(b) Pictorial diagrams of scaffold fabrication process using suspension-enclosing projection-SLA 3D printing. (c)(d)(e)(f) CAD models and μCT images. (g) Scaffold combination and in-vivo study in an animal model. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [116] (Copyright 2021, The American Chemical Society).
Fig.20  (a) CAD models and images of 3D printed HA scaffolds. (b)(c) Specific 3D printed HA scaffolds for femur and skull bone defects. (d)(e)(f)(g)(h) Mechanical behavior of the 3D printed triply periodic minimum surfaces-structured HA scaffolds. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [117] (Copyright 2022, John Wiley and Sons).
Fig.21  (a) Schematic of in-vivo femur implantation, (b) the compression test, (c) μCT images, and (d) quantitative analysis of new bone formation of the scaffolds after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of implantation. The red color refers to the new bone tissue while the white color indicates the HA scaffold material. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [117] (Copyright 2022, John Wiley and Sons).
Fig.22  Scaffold observations by μCT and SEM imaging (upper panel) along with cumulate mapping of the formed new bone (NB) (lower panel). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [118] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Fig.23  Fabrication process (upper panel) and in-vivo study (middle and lower panels) of wollastonite bioceramic scaffolds. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [119] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Fig.24  Illustrative schematic of (a) the scan process and generating CAD model along with (b) the DLP technique. (c)?(j) Precision testing of DLP including SEM imaging. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [120] (Copyright 2022, The American Chemical Society).
Fig.25  In-vivo animal model and in-vivo analysis of new bone formation using μCT imaging, fluorescent staining and histology. NB denotes new bone. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [120] (Copyright 2022, The American Chemical Society).
Fig.26  (a)–(h) Design and production of PEEK scaffold fabricated using FDM and titanium scaffolds (fabricated by SLM) made specifically for the patient’s maxilla. (i) Finite element models of PEEK and titanium scaffolds. (j)–(r) Design and execution of in-vivo operation. (s) Histological images of implanted PEEK and titanium scaffolds along with control. Pink color refers to new bone. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [53] (Copyright 2022, The American Chemical Society).
Fig.27  A schematic representation of (a) the 3D-printing procedures used to create scaffolds using SLS, along with (b) the macroscopic pictures, (c) design models, (d) μCT images, and (e) SEM images. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [15] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
Fig.28  In-vivo animal study of titanium alloy-based scaffolds with a trabecular-like structure (ITS). White: scaffold. Purple: soft tissue. Green, blue, and yellow: new bone tissue. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [15] (Copyright 2022, Elsevier).
1 S, Pina V P, Ribeiro C F, Marques et al.. Scaffolding strategies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications.Materials, 2019, 12(11): 1824
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12111824 pmid: 31195642
2 A, Sola J, Bertacchini D, D’Avella et al.. Development of solvent-casting particulate leaching (SCPL) polymer scaffolds as improved three-dimensional supports to mimic the bone marrow niche.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2019, 96: 153–165
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.10.086 pmid: 30606521
3 G, Conoscenti T, Schneider K, Stoelzel et al.. PLLA scaffolds produced by thermally induced phase separation (TIPS) allow human chondrocyte growth and extracellular matrix formation dependent on pore size.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2017, 80: 449–459
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.06.011 pmid: 28866186
4 M Z, Moghadam S, Hassanajili F, Esmaeilzadeh et al.. Formation of porous HPCL/LPCL/HA scaffolds with supercritical CO2 gas foaming method.Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2017, 69: 115–127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.12.014 pmid: 28068621
5 A, Kordjamshidi S, Saber-Samandari Nejad M, Ghadiri et al.. Preparation of novel porous calcium silicate scaffold loaded by celecoxib drug using freeze drying technique: Fabrication, characterization and simulation.Ceramics International, 2019, 45(11): 14126–14135
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.04.113
6 X, Xu S, Ren L, Li et al.. Biodegradable engineered fiber scaffolds fabricated by electrospinning for periodontal tissue regeneration.Journal of Biomaterials Applications, 2021, 36(1): 55–75
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328220952250 pmid: 32842852
7 A S, Alagoz V Hasirci . 3D printing of polymeric tissue engineering scaffolds using open-source fused deposition modeling.Emergent Materials, 2020, 3(4): 429–439
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42247-019-00048-2
8 C, Gayer J, Ritter M, Bullemer et al.. Development of a solvent-free polylactide/calcium carbonate composite for selective laser sintering of bone tissue engineering scaffolds.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2019, 101: 660–673
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.03.101 pmid: 31029360
9 R, Liu L, Ma H, Liu et al.. Effects of pore size on the mechanical and biological properties of stereolithographic 3D printed hap bioceramic scaffold.Ceramics International, 2021, 47(20): 28924–28931
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.07.053
10 W, Sun Y, Zhang D A, Gregory et al.. Patterning the neuronal cells via inkjet printing of self-assembled peptides on silk scaffolds.Progress in Natural Science, 2020, 30(5): 686–696
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2020.09.007
11 M, Alizadeh-Osgouei Y, Li C Wen . A comprehensive review of biodegradable synthetic polymer–ceramic composites and their manufacture for biomedical applications.Bioactive Materials, 2018, 4(1): 22–36
pmid: 30533554
12 G, Turnbull J, Clarke F, Picard et al.. 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.Bioactive Materials, 2018, 3(3): 278–314
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.10.001 pmid: 29744467
13 A, El-Fiqi J H Park . Novel large-volume and highly porous scaffold of poly(ε-caprolactone) microfibers/collagen nanofibers for regenerative medicine.Materials Letters, 2022, 322: 132474
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2022.132474
14 A, Kirillova T R, Yeazel D, Asheghali et al.. Fabrication of biomedical scaffolds using biodegradable polymers.Chemical Reviews, 2021, 121(18): 11238–11304
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01200 pmid: 33856196
15 Z, Wang M, Zhang Z, Liu et al.. Biomimetic design strategy of complex porous structure based on 3D printing Ti–6Al–4V scaffolds for enhanced osseointegration.Materials & Design, 2022, 218: 110721
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110721
16 X, Du M, Dehghani N, Alsaadi et al.. A femoral shape porous scaffold bio-nanocomposite fabricated using 3D printing and freeze-drying technique for orthopedic application.Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 275: 125302
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.125302
17 M, Zhang R, Lin X, Wang et al.. 3D printing of Haversian bone-mimicking scaffolds for multicellular delivery in bone regeneration.Science Advances, 2020, 6(12): eaaz6725
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz6725 pmid: 32219170
18 H, Liang Y, Wang S, Chen et al.. Nano-hydroxyapatite bone scaffolds with different porous structures processed by digital light processing 3D printing.International Journal of Bioprinting, 2022, 8(1): 198–210
https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v8i1.502
19 H, Zhu M, Li X, Huang et al.. 3D printed tricalcium phosphate-bioglass scaffold with gyroid structure enhance bone ingrowth in challenging bone defect treatment.Applied Materials Today, 2021, 25: 101166
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2021.101166
20 L M, Guiney N D, Mansukhani A E, Jakus et al.. Three-dimensional printing of cytocompatible, thermally conductive hexagonal boron nitride nanocomposites.Nano Letters, 2018, 18(6): 3488–3493
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b00555 pmid: 29709193
21 M, Mirkhalaf A, Dao A, Schindeler et al.. Personalized Baghdadite scaffolds: stereolithography, mechanics and in vivo testing.Acta Biomaterialia, 2021, 132: 217–226
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.012 pmid: 33711527
22 L, Mbundi M, Gonzalez-Perez F, Gonzalez-Perez et al.. Trends in the development of tailored elastin-like recombinamer-based porous biomaterials for soft and hard tissue applications.Frontiers in Materials, 2021, 7: 601795
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2020.601795
23 A, El-Fiqi H W Kim . Nano/micro-structured poly(ε-caprolactone)/gelatin nanofibers with biomimetically-grown hydroxyapatite spherules: high protein adsorption, controlled protein delivery and sustained bioactive ions release designed as a multifunctional bone regenerative membrane.Ceramics International, 2021, 47(14): 19873–19885
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.04.003
24 X, Lu C, Wang F, Favier et al.. Electrospun nanomaterials for supercapacitor electrodes: designed architectures and electrochemical performance.Advanced Energy Materials, 2017, 7(2): 1601301
https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201601301
25 J J, Kim A, El-Fiqi H W Kim . Synergetic cues of bioactive nanoparticles and nanofibrous structure in bone scaffolds to stimulate osteogenesis and angiogenesis.ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2017, 9(3): 2059–2073
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b12089 pmid: 28029246
26 J J, Kim S H, Bang A, El-Fiqi et al.. Fabrication of nanofibrous macroporous scaffolds of poly(lactic acid) incorporating bioactive glass nanoparticles by camphene-assisted phase separation.Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2014, 143(3): 1092–1101
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2013.11.009
27 A, El-Fiqi J H, Lee E J, Lee et al.. Collagen hydrogels incorporated with surface-aminated mesoporous nanobioactive glass: improvement of physicochemical stability and mechanical properties is effective for hard tissue engineering.Acta Biomaterialia, 2013, 9(12): 9508–9521
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.07.036 pmid: 23928332
28 S B, Jo U, Erdenebileg K, Dashnyam et al.. Nano-graphene oxide/polyurethane nanofibers: mechanically flexible and myogenic stimulating matrix for skeletal tissue engineering.Journal of Tissue Engineering, 2020, 11: 2041731419900424
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731419900424 pmid: 32076499
29 O, Syed J H, Kim Z, Keskin-Erdogan et al.. SIS/aligned fibre scaffold designed to meet layered oesophageal tissue complexity and properties.Acta Biomaterialia, 2019, 99: 181–195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2019.08.015 pmid: 31446049
30 A, El-Fiqi S J, Seo H W Kim . Chapter 15: Mineralization of fibers for bone regeneration. In: Aparicio C, Ginebra M P, eds. Biomineralization and Biomaterials ― Fundamentals and Applications. Woodhead Publishing, 2015, 443–476
31 M N, Collins G, Ren K, Young et al.. Scaffold fabrication technologies and structure/function properties in bone tissue engineering.Advanced Functional Materials, 2021, 31(21): 2010609
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202010609
32 A, El-Fiqi J H, Kim H W Kim . Osteoinductive fibrous scaffolds of biopolymer/mesoporous bioactive glass nanocarriers with excellent bioactivity and long-term delivery of osteogenic drug.ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2015, 7(2): 1140–1152
https://doi.org/10.1021/am5077759 pmid: 25531645
33 J O, Buitrago K D, Patel A, El-Fiqi et al.. Silk fibroin/collagen protein hybrid cell-encapsulating hydrogels with tunable gelation and improved physical and biological properties.Acta Biomaterialia, 2018, 69: 218–233
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.12.026 pmid: 29410166
34 J H, Lee J H, Park A, El-Fiqi et al.. Biointerface control of electrospun fiber scaffolds for bone regeneration: engineered protein link to mineralized surface.Acta Biomaterialia, 2014, 10(6): 2750–2761
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.021 pmid: 24468581
35 H C, Lim O H, Nam M J, Kim et al.. Delivery of dexamethasone from bioactive nanofiber matrices stimulates odontogenesis of human dental pulp cells through integrin/BMP/mTOR signaling pathways.International Journal of Nanomedicine, 2016, 11: 2557–2567
pmid: 27354790
36 A, El-Fiqi H W Kim . Mesoporous bioactive nanocarriers in electrospun biopolymer fibrous scaffolds designed for sequential drug delivery.RSC Advances, 2014, 4(9): 4444–4452
https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RA45858J
37 A M, El-Kady A A, Ali A El-Fiqi . Controlled delivery of therapeutic ions and antibiotic drug of novel alginate-agarose matrix incorporating selenium-modified borosilicate glass designed for chronic wound healing.Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2020, 534: 119889
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2020.119889
38 G H, Kim Y D, Park S Y, Lee et al.. Odontogenic stimulation of human dental pulp cells with bioactive nanocomposite fiber.Journal of Biomaterials Applications, 2015, 29(6): 854–866
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328214546884 pmid: 25098335
39 K, Liu L, Yan R, Li et al.. 3D printed personalized nerve guide conduits for precision repair of peripheral nerve defects.Advanced Science, 2022, 9(12): 2103875
https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202103875 pmid: 35182046
40 F, Zhang Z, Li M, Xu et al.. A review of 3D printed porous ceramics.Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 2022, 42(8): 3351–3373
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2022.02.039
41 A R, Studart U T, Gonzenbach E, Tervoort et al.. Processing routes to macroporous ceramics: a review.Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2006, 89(6): 1771–1789
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01044.x
42 F, Baino G, Novajra C Vitale-Brovarone . Bioceramics and scaffolds: a winning combination for tissue engineering.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2015, 3: 202
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00202 pmid: 26734605
43 M, Kumar V Sharma . Additive manufacturing techniques for the fabrication of tissue engineering scaffolds: a review.Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2021, 27(6): 1230–1272
https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2021-0011
44 S, Kanwar S Vijayavenkataraman . Design of 3D printed scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a review.Bioprinting, 2021, 24: e00167
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2021.e00167
45 X, Feng L, Ma H, Liang et al.. Osteointegration of 3D-printed fully porous polyetheretherketone scaffolds with different pore sizes.ACS Omega, 2020, 5(41): 26655–26666
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c03489 pmid: 33110992
46 Eil Bakhtiari S, Soleymani H R, Bakhsheshi-Rad S, Karbasi et al.. 3-Dimensional printing of hydrogel-based nanocomposites: a comprehensive review on the technology description, properties, and applications.Advanced Engineering Materials, 2021, 23(10): 2100477
https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202100477
47 M, Asadi-Eydivand T C, Brown A Bagheri . Raft-mediated 3D printing of “living” materials with tailored hierarchical porosity.ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 2022, 4(7): 4940–4948
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.2c00500
48 P, Tesavibul R, Felzmann S, Gruber et al.. Processing of 45S5 Bioglass® by lithography-based additive manufacturing.Materials Letters, 2012, 74: 81–84
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2012.01.019
49 Y, Chen W, Li C, Zhang et al.. Recent developments of biomaterials for additive manufacturing of bone scaffolds.Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2020, 9(23): 2000724
https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202000724 pmid: 32743960
50 M Bahraminasab . Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds.Biomedical Engineering Online, 2020, 19(1): 69
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-020-00810-2 pmid: 32883300
51 B, Thavornyutikarn P, Tesavibul K, Sitthiseripratip et al.. Porous 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds using stereolithography: effect of partial pre-sintering on structural and mechanical properties of scaffolds.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2017, 75: 1281–1288
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.001 pmid: 28415417
52 M M, Germaini S, Belhabib S, Guessasma et al.. Additive manufacturing of biomaterials for bone tissue engineering ― a critical review of the state of the art and new concepts.Progress in Materials Science, 2022, 130: 100963
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.100963
53 L, Li H, Gao C, Wang et al.. Assessment of customized alveolar bone augmentation using titanium scaffolds vs polyetheretherketone (PEEK) scaffolds: a comparative study based on 3D printing technology.ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2022, 8(5): 2028–2039
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c00060 pmid: 35443132
54 B T, Challa S K, Gummadi K, Elhattab et al.. In-house processing of 3D printable polyetheretherketone (PEEK) filaments and the effect of fused deposition modeling parameters on 3D-printed peek structures.International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2022, 121(3–4): 1675–1688
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09360-4
55 T, Distler N, Fournier A, Grünewald et al.. Polymer–bioactive glass composite filaments for 3D scaffold manufacturing by fused deposition modeling: fabrication and characterization.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2020, 8: 552
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00552 pmid: 32671025
56 H, Zhu M, Monavari K, Zheng et al.. 3D bioprinting of multifunctional dynamic nanocomposite bioinks incorporating Cu-doped mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering.Small, 2022, 18(12): 2104996
https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202104996 pmid: 35102718
57 J, Lai C, Wang M Wang . 3D printing in biomedical engineering: processes, materials, and applications.Applied Physics Reviews, 2021, 8(2): 021322
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0024177
58 B, Zhang R, Cristescu D B, Chrisey et al.. Solvent-based extrusion 3D printing for the fabrication of tissue engineering scaffolds.International Journal of Bioprinting, 2020, 6(1): 28–42
https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v6i1.211
59 A, Schwab R, Levato M, D’Este et al.. Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting.Chemical Reviews, 2020, 120(19): 11028–11055
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00084 pmid: 32856892
60 A, Schwab R, Levato M, D’Este et al.. Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting.Chemical Reviews, 2020, 120(19): 10850–10877
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00084 pmid: 32856892
61 W, Li L S, Mille J A, Robledo et al.. Recent advances in formulating and processing biomaterial inks for vat polymerization-based 3D printing.Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2020, 9(15): 2000156
https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202000156 pmid: 32529775
62 S G, Pedrero P, Llamas-Sillero J Serrano-López . A multidisciplinary journey towards bone tissue engineering.Materials, 2021, 14(17): 4896
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14174896
63 A Ibrahim . Chapter 13: 3D bioprinting bone. In: Thomas D J, Jessop Z M, Whitaker I S, eds. 3D Bioprinting for Reconstructive Surgery ― Techniques and Applications. Woodhead Publishing, 2017, 245–275
64 L, Vidal C, Kampleitner M Á, Brennan et al.. Reconstruction of large skeletal defects: current clinical therapeutic strategies and future directions using 3D printing.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2020, 8: 61
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00061 pmid: 32117940
65 K, Grassie Y Khan . Chapter 1: Bone tissue engineering. In: Chen Y, ed. Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering. Elsevier, 2022, 1–40
66 F R, Maia A R, Bastos J M, Oliveira et al.. Recent approaches towards bone tissue engineering.Bone, 2022, 154: 116256
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2021.116256 pmid: 34781047
67 R, Ranjan D, Kumar M, Kundu et al.. A critical review on classification of materials used in 3D printing process.Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 61: 43–49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.308
68 A, Anandhapadman A, Venkateswaran H, Jayaraman et al.. Advances in 3D printing of composite scaffolds for the repairment of bone tissue associated defects.Biotechnology Progress, 2022, 38(3): e3234
https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.3234 pmid: 35037419
69 P, Ramburrun S, Indermun M, Govender , et al.. Research progress of scaffold materials. In: Mozafari M, Sefat F, Atala A, eds. Handbook of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds: Volume One. Woodhead Publishing, 2019, 93–108
70 M, Zhang C, Qin Y, Wang et al.. 3D printing of tree-like scaffolds for innervated bone regeneration.Additive Manufacturing, 2022, 54: 102721
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.102721
71 J K M B, Daguano F C, Giora K F, Santos et al.. Shear-thinning sacrificial ink for fabrication of biosilicate® osteoconductive scaffolds by material extrusion 3D printing.Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 287: 126286
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126286
72 D, Pierantozzi A, Scalzone S, Jindal et al.. 3D printed Sr-containing composite scaffolds: effect of structural design and material formulation towards new strategies for bone tissue engineering.Composites Science and Technology, 2020, 191: 108069
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108069
73 X, Liu Y, Miao H, Liang et al.. 3D-printed bioactive ceramic scaffolds with biomimetic micro/nano-HAp surfaces mediated cell fate and promoted bone augmentation of the bone-implant interface in vivo.Bioactive Materials, 2022, 12: 120–132
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.10.016 pmid: 35087968
74 H, Sun C, Zhang B, Zhang et al.. 3D printed calcium phosphate scaffolds with controlled release of osteogenic drugs for bone regeneration.Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022, 427: 130961
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130961
75 H, Shao Z, Nian Z, Jing et al.. Additive manufacturing of hydroxyapatite bioceramic scaffolds with projection based 3D printing.Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering: Additive Manufacturing Frontiers, 2022, 1(2): 100021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjmeam.2022.100021
76 Hede D, Van B, Liang S, Anania et al.. 3D-printed synthetic hydroxyapatite scaffold with in silico optimized macrostructure enhances bone formation in vivo.Advanced Functional Materials, 2022, 32(6): 2105002
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202105002
77 M M, Wang R L, Flores L, Witek et al.. Dipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity.Scientific Reports, 2019, 9(1): 18439
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54726-6 pmid: 31804544
78 A, Kumar S, Kargozar F, Baino et al.. Additive manufacturing methods for producing hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-based composite scaffolds: a review.Frontiers in Materials, 2019, 6: 313
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2019.00313
79 Y, Chen L, Chen Y, Wang et al.. Lithium-containing bioactive glasses enhanced 3D-printed plga scaffolds for bone regeneration in diabetes.Composites Part B: Engineering, 2022, 230: 109550
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109550
80 A, Nommeots-Nomm P D, Lee J R Jones . Direct ink writing of highly bioactive glasses.Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 2018, 38(3): 837–844
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2017.08.006
81 R V, Baier Raggio J I, Contreras C M, Giovanetti et al.. Shape fidelity, mechanical and biological performance of 3D printed polycaprolactone–bioactive glass composite scaffolds.Biomaterials Advances, 2022, 134: 112540
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112540 pmid: 35525740
82 M R, Bidgoli I, Alemzadeh E, Tamjid et al.. Fabrication of hierarchically porous silk fibroin–bioactive glass composite scaffold via indirect 3D printing: effect of particle size on physico-mechanical properties and in vitro cellular behavior.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2019, 103: 109688
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.04.067 pmid: 31349405
83 Q, Dai Q, Li H, Gao et al.. 3D printing of Cu-doped bioactive glass composite scaffolds promotes bone regeneration through activating the HIF-1α and TNF-α pathway of hUVECs.Biomaterials Science, 2021, 9(16): 5519–5532
https://doi.org/10.1039/D1BM00870F pmid: 34236062
84 S, Simorgh N, Alasvand M, Khodadadi et al.. Additive manufacturing of bioactive glass biomaterials.Methods, 2022, 208: 75–91
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2022.10.010 pmid: 36334889
85 S, Wang R, Gu F, Wang et al.. 3D-printed PCL/Zn scaffolds for bone regeneration with a dose-dependent effect on osteogenesis and osteoclastogenesis.Materials Today Bio, 2022, 13: 100202
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtbio.2021.100202 pmid: 35036897
86 A, Fallah M, Altunbek P, Bartolo et al.. 3D printed scaffold design for bone defects with improved mechanical and biological properties.Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2022, 134: 105418
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105418 pmid: 36007489
87 D Y, Kwon J S, Kwon S H, Park et al.. A computer-designed scaffold for bone regeneration within cranial defect using human dental pulp stem cells.Scientific Reports, 2015, 5(1): 12721
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12721 pmid: 26234712
88 Y, Yan H, Chen H, Zhang et al.. Vascularized 3D printed scaffolds for promoting bone regeneration.Biomaterials, 2019, 190–191: 97–110
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.10.033 pmid: 30415019
89 Lee J, Seo H, Nah D, Lee et al.. Immediately implantable extracellular matrix-enriched osteoinductive hydrogel-laden 3D-printed scaffold for promoting vascularized bone regeneration in vivo.Materials & Design, 2022, 219: 110801
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110801
90 S, Su W, Chen M, Zheng et al.. Facile fabrication of 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds with a Sr-CaP coating for bone regeneration.ACS Omega, 2022, 7(10): 8391–8402
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c05908 pmid: 35309469
91 S, Choi J W, Kim S, Lee et al.. Mechanical and biocompatibility properties of sintered titanium powder for mimetic 3D-printed bone scaffolds.ACS Omega, 2022, 7(12): 10340–10346
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06974 pmid: 35382287
92 Y, Zhang N, Sun M, Zhu et al.. The contribution of pore size and porosity of 3D printed porous titanium scaffolds to osteogenesis.Biomaterials Advances, 2022, 133: 112651
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2022.112651 pmid: 35034817
93 C, Yin T, Zhang Q, Wei et al.. Surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V implants by ultraviolet photofunctionalization for improved osseointegration.Bioactive Materials, 2022, 7: 26–38
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.05.043 pmid: 34466715
94 K, Liu J, Wang S, Fang et al.. Effect of polycaprolactone impregnation on the properties of calcium silicate scaffolds fabricated by 3D printing.Materials & Design, 2022, 220: 110856
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110856
95 R, Nie Y, Sun H, Lv et al.. 3D printing of MXene composite hydrogel scaffolds for photothermal antibacterial activity and bone regeneration in infected bone defect models.Nanoscale, 2022, 14(22): 8112–8129
https://doi.org/10.1039/D2NR02176E pmid: 35612416
96 C, Wang C, Meng Z, Zhang et al.. 3D printing of polycaprolactone/bioactive glass composite scaffolds for in situ bone repair.Ceramics International, 2022, 48(6): 7491–7499
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.11.293
97 R L M S, Oliveira A P N, Alves L, Barbosa et al.. 3D printing of bioactive glass S53P4/sodium alginate sintering-free scaffolds.Bioprinting, 2022, 27: e00226
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00226
98 S, Pant S, Thomas S, Loganathan et al.. 3D bioprinted poly(lactic acid)/mesoporous bioactive glass based biomimetic scaffold with rapid apatite crystallization and in-vitro cytocompatability for bone tissue engineering.International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2022, 217: 979–997
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.07.202 pmid: 35908677
99 R F, Richter T, Ahlfeld M, Gelinsky et al.. Composites consisting of calcium phosphate cements and mesoporous bioactive glasses as a 3D plottable drug delivery system.Acta Biomaterialia, 2023, 156: 146–157
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2022.01.034 pmid: 35063708
100 M, Monavari S, Homaeigohar M, Fuentes-Chandía et al.. 3D printing of alginate dialdehyde-gelatin (ADA-GEL) hydrogels incorporating phytotherapeutic icariin loaded mesoporous SiO2–CaO nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2021, 131: 112470
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112470 pmid: 34857258
101 S, Sahmani A, Khandan S, Esmaeili et al.. Calcium phosphate–PLA scaffolds fabricated by fused deposition modeling technique for bone tissue applications: fabrication, characterization and simulation.Ceramics International, 2020, 46(2): 2447–2456
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.09.238
102 L, Zou L, Hu P, Pan et al.. Icariin-releasing 3D printed scaffold for bone regeneration.Composites Part B: Engineering, 2022, 232: 109625
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109625
103 S H, Han J, Lee K M, Lee et al.. Enhanced healing of rat calvarial defects with 3D printed calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite/collagen/bone morphogenetic protein 2 scaffolds.Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2020, 108: 103782
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103782 pmid: 32469715
104 A, Saranti A, Tiron-Stathopoulos L, Papaioannou et al.. 3D-printed bioactive scaffolds for bone regeneration bearing carbon dots for bioimaging purposes.Smart Materials in Medicine, 2022, 3: 12–19
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smaim.2021.11.002
105 J, Lee D, Kim C H, Jang et al.. Highly elastic 3D-printed gelatin/HA/placental-extract scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.Theranostics, 2022, 12(9): 4051–4066
https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.73146 pmid: 35673575
106 Y, Ha X, Ma S, Li et al.. Bone microenvironment-mimetic scaffolds with hierarchical microstructure for enhanced vascularization and bone regeneration.Advanced Functional Materials, 2022, 32(20): 2200011
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202200011
107 J, Zhang D, Tong H, Song et al.. Osteoimmunity-regulating biomimetically hierarchical scaffold for augmented bone regeneration.Advanced Materials, 2022, 34(36): 2202044
https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202202044
108 C, Cao P, Huang A, Prasopthum et al.. Characterisation of bone regeneration in 3D printed ductile PCL/PEG/hydroxyapatite scaffolds with high ceramic microparticle concentrations.Biomaterials Science, 2021, 10(1): 138–152
https://doi.org/10.1039/D1BM01645H pmid: 34806738
109 S, Zhao K, Xie Y, Guo et al.. Fabrication and biological activity of 3D-printed polycaprolactone/magnesium porous scaffolds for critical size bone defect repair.ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2020, 6(9): 5120–5131
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b01911 pmid: 33455263
110 F, Baino G, Magnaterra E, Fiume et al.. Digital light processing stereolithography of hydroxyapatite scaffolds with bone-like architecture, permeability, and mechanical properties.Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2022, 105(3): 1648–1657
https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.17843
111 R, Chaudhary P, Fabbri E, Leoni , et al.. Additive manufacturing by digital light processing: a review. Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 2022
112 H H, Han J H, Shim H, Lee et al.. Reconstruction of complex maxillary defects using patient-specific 3D-printed biodegradable scaffolds.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, 2018, 6(11): e1975
https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001975 pmid: 30881789
113 A E, Jakus A L, Rutz S W, Jordan et al.. Hyperelastic “bone”: a highly versatile, growth factor-free, osteoregenerative, scalable, and surgically friendly biomaterial.Science Translational Medicine, 2016, 8(358): 358ra127
https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf7704 pmid: 27683552
114 S H, Lee K G, Lee J H, Hwang et al.. Evaluation of mechanical strength and bone regeneration ability of 3D printed kagome-structure scaffold using rabbit calvarial defect model.Materials Science and Engineering C, 2019, 98: 949–959
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.050 pmid: 30813102
115 R, Wu Y, Li M, Shen et al.. Bone tissue regeneration: the role of finely tuned pore architecture of bioactive scaffolds before clinical translation.Bioactive Materials, 2021, 6(5): 1242–1254
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.11.003 pmid: 33210022
116 M T, Remy A, Akkouch L, He et al.. Rat calvarial bone regeneration by 3D-printed β-tricalcium phosphate incorporating microRNA-200C.ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2021, 7(9): 4521–4534
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c01756 pmid: 34437807
117 Q, Zhang L, Ma X, Ji et al.. High-strength hydroxyapatite scaffolds with minimal surface macrostructures for load-bearing bone regeneration.Advanced Functional Materials, 2022, 32(33): 2204182
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202204182
118 Y, Raymond C, Lehmann E, Thorel et al.. 3D printing with star-shaped strands: a new approach to enhance in vivo bone regeneration.Biomaterials Advances, 2022, 137: 212807
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.212807 pmid: 35929234
119 C, Xu F, Wu J, Yang et al.. 3D printed long-term structurally stable bioceramic dome scaffolds with controllable biodegradation favorable for guided bone regeneration.Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022, 450: 138003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.138003
120 B, Zhang X, Gui P, Song et al.. Three-dimensional printing of large-scale, high-resolution bioceramics with micronano inner porosity and customized surface characterization design for bone regeneration.ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2022, 14(7): 8804–8815
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c22868 pmid: 35156367
121 J H, Ahn J, Kim G, Han et al.. 3D-printed biodegradable composite scaffolds with significantly enhanced mechanical properties via the combination of binder jetting and capillary rise infiltration process.Additive Manufacturing, 2021, 41: 101988
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.101988
122 N E, Putra K G N, Borg P J, Diaz-Payno et al.. Additive manufacturing of bioactive and biodegradable porous iron-akermanite composites for bone regeneration.Acta Biomaterialia, 2022, 148: 355–373
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2022.06.009 pmid: 35690326
123 J, Wei Y, Yan J, Gao et al.. 3D-printed hydroxyapatite microspheres reinforced PLGA scaffolds for bone regeneration.Biomaterials Advances, 2022, 133: 112618
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112618 pmid: 35031175
124 X, Zhao S, Wang F, Wang , et al.. 3D-printed Mg-1Ca/polycaprolactone composite scaffolds with promoted bone regeneration. Journal of Magnesium and Alloys, 2022, in press
125 Z, Wang D, Lin M, Wang et al.. Seamless route of self-assembly and 3D printing to fabricate hierarchical mesoporous bioactive glass scaffold for customized bone regeneration with enhanced efficacy.Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022, 446: 137270
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.137270
126 X, Wang D, Zhai X, Yao et al.. 3D printing of pink bioceramic scaffolds for bone tumor tissue therapy.Applied Materials Today, 2022, 27: 101443
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2022.101443
127 D, Dong H, Su X, Li et al.. Microstructures and mechanical properties of biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics fabricated by SLA 3D printing.Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 2022, 81: 433–443
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.07.016
128 M I, Martins M A, Rodrigues M A, Lopes et al.. Preparation and characterization of customized bone grafting hydroxyapatite models obtained by digital light processing 3D printing.Journal of Materials Research, 2022, 37(3): 784–795
https://doi.org/10.1557/s43578-021-00481-2
129 S, Pant S, Subramanian S, Thomas et al.. Tailoring of mesoporous bioactive glass composite scaffold via thermal extrusion based 3D bioprinting and scrutiny on bone tissue engineering characteristics.Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2022, 341: 112104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2022.112104
130 K C R, Kolan Y W, Huang J A, Semon et al.. 3D-printed biomimetic bioactive glass scaffolds for bone regeneration in rat calvarial defects.International Journal of Bioprinting, 2020, 6(2): 274
https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v6i2.274
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed