From a materials perspective, the pillars for the development of clinically translatable scaffold-based strategies for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) bone and periodontal regeneration have included electrospinning and 3D printing (biofabrication) technologies. Here, we offer a detailed analysis of the latest innovations in 3D (bio)printing strategies for CMF bone and periodontal regeneration and provide future directions envisioning the development of advanced 3D architectures for successful clinical translation. First, the principles of electrospinning applied to the generation of biodegradable scaffolds are discussed. Next, we present on extrusion-based 3D printing technologies with a focus on creating scaffolds with improved regenerative capacity. In addition, we offer a critical appraisal on 3D (bio)printing and multitechnology convergence to enable the reconstruction of CMF bones and periodontal tissues. As a future outlook, we highlight future directions associated with the utilisation of complementary biomaterials and (bio)fabrication technologies for effective translation of personalised and functional scaffolds into the clinics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ZhangWYelickPC.Craniofacial tissue engineering. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8(1):a025775.
2.
FutranNDMendezE.Developments in reconstruction of midface and maxilla. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):249–258.
3.
GendenEMOkayDSteppMTComparison of functional and quality-of-life outcomes in patients With and without palatomaxillary reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol.–Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(7):775–780.
4.
WardBBrownSKrebsbachP.Bioengineering strategies for regeneration of craniofacial bone: a review of emerging technologies. Oral Dis. 2010;16(8):709–716.
5.
PeresMAMacphersonLMWeyantRJOral diseases: a global public health challenge. The Lancet. 2019;394(10194):249–260.
6.
EkePIDyeBWeiLPrevalence of periodontitis in adults in the United States: 2009 and 2010. J Dent Res. 2012;91(10):914–920.
7.
EkePIBorgnakkeWSGencoRJ.Recent epidemiologic trends in periodontitis in the USA. Periodontol. 2000. 2020;82(1):257–267.
8.
BottinoMCPankajakshanDNörJE.Advanced scaffolds for dental pulp and periodontal regeneration. Dental Clinics. 2017;61(4):689–711.
9.
KornmanKS.Contemporary approaches for identifying individual risk for periodontitis. Periodontol. 2000. 2018;78(1):12–29.
10.
ReichertJCCipitriaAEpariDRA tissue engineering solution for segmental defect regeneration in load-bearing long bones. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(141):141ra93–141ra93.
11.
ObregonFVaquetteCIvanovskiSThree-dimensional bioprinting for regenerative dentistry and craniofacial tissue engineering. J Dent Res. 2015;94(9_suppl):143S–152S.
12.
DubeyNFerreiraJADaghreryA Highly tunable bioactive fiber-reinforced hydrogel for guided bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2020;113:164–176.
13.
DubeyNFerreiraJAMaldaJExtracellular matrix/amorphous magnesium phosphate bioink for 3D bioprinting of craniomaxillofacial bone tissue. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12(21):23752–23763.
14.
RasperiniGPilipchukSFlanaganC3D-printed bioresorbable scaffold for periodontal repair. J Dent Res. 2015;94(9_suppl):153S–157S.
15.
ShenCWitekLFloresRL Three-dimensional printing for craniofacial bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng, Part A. 2020;26(23–24):1303–1311.
16.
BottinoMCThomasVSchmidtGRecent advances in the development of GTR/GBR membranes for periodontal regeneration – a materials perspective. Dent Mater. 2012;28(7):703–721.
17.
YangFBothSKYangXDevelopment of an electrospun nano-apatite/PCL composite membrane for GTR/GBR application. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(9):3295–3304.
18.
KarringT.Regenerative periodontal therapy. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2000;2(4):101–109.
19.
GentilePChionoVTonda-TuroCPolymeric membranes for guided bone regeneration. Biotechnol J. 2011;6(10):1187–1197.
20.
JungREFennerNHämmerleCHLong-term outcome of implants placed with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using resorbable and non-resorbable membranes after 12–14 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(10):1065–1073.
21.
RamakrishnaSFujiharaKTeoW-EElectrospun nanofibers: solving global issues. Mater Today. 2006;9(3):40–50.
22.
GreinerAWendorffJH.Electrospinning: a fascinating method for the preparation of ultrathin fibers. Angew Chem, Int Ed. 2007;46(30):5670–5703.
23.
ChenXLiuYMiaoLControlled release of recombinant human cementum protein 1 from electrospun multiphasic scaffold for cementum regeneration. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:3145–3158.
24.
GümüşderelioğluMSunalEDemirtaşTTChitosan-based double-faced barrier membrane coated with functional nanostructures and loaded with BMP-6. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2020;31(1):4.
25.
YangFWolkeJJansenJ.Biomimetic calcium phosphate coating on electrospun poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Chem Eng J. 2008;137(1):154–161.
26.
ElgaliITurriAXiaWGuided bone regeneration using resorbable membrane and different bone substitutes: early histological and molecular events. Acta Biomater. 2016;29:409–423.
27.
CarterS-SDCostaPFVaquetteCAdditive biomanufacturing: an advanced approach for periodontal tissue regeneration. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(1):12–22.
28.
ZadpoorAAMaldaJ.. Additive manufacturing of biomaterials, tissues, and organs. 1–11
29.
FaragAHashimiSMVaquetteCAssessment of static and perfusion methods for decellularization of PCL membrane-supported periodontal ligament cell sheet constructs. Arch Oral Biol. 2018;88:67–76.
30.
CriscentiGLongoniADi LucaATriphasic scaffolds for the regeneration of the bone–ligament interface. Biofabrication. 2016;8(1):015009.
31.
KimWJYunH-SKimGH.An innovative cell-laden α-TCP/collagen scaffold fabricated using a two-step printing process for potential application in regenerating hard tissues. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):3181.
32.
ShimJ-HLeeJ-SKimJYBioprinting of a mechanically enhanced three-dimensional dual cell-laden construct for osteochondral tissue engineering using a multi-head tissue/organ building system. J Micromech Microeng. 2012;22(8):085014.
33.
OzbolatITHospodiukM.Current advances and future perspectives in extrusion-based bioprinting. Biomaterials. 2016;76:321–343.
34.
JakusAERutzALJordanSWHyperelastic ‘bone’: a highly versatile, growth factor–free, osteoregenerative, scalable, and surgically friendly biomaterial. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(358):358ra127–358ra127.
35.
GolafshanNVorndranEZaharievskiSTough magnesium phosphate-based 3D-printed implants induce bone regeneration in an equine defect model. Biomaterials. 2020;261:120302.
36.
AhlfeldTDoberenzFKilianDBioprinting of mineralized constructs utilizing multichannel plotting of a self-setting calcium phosphate cement and a cell-laden bioink. Biofabrication. 2018;10(4):045002.
37.
ShimJ-HJangK-MHahnSKThree-dimensional bioprinting of multilayered constructs containing human mesenchymal stromal cells for osteochondral tissue regeneration in the rabbit knee joint. Biofabrication. 2016;8(1):014102.
38.
de RuijterMRibeiroADokterISimultaneous micropatterning of fibrous meshes and bioinks for the fabrication of living tissue constructs. Adv Healthc Mater. 2019;8(7):1800418.
39.
WeiCDongJ.Hybrid hierarchical fabrication of three-dimensional scaffolds. J Manuf Process. 2014;16(2):257–263.
40.
CastilhoMde RuijterMBeirneS Multitechnology biofabrication: a new approach for the manufacturing of functional tissue structures? Trends Biotechnol. 2020;38(12):1316–1328.
41.
HaiderAHaiderSKummaraMRAdvances in the scaffolds fabrication techniques using biocompatible polymers and their biomedical application: a technical and statistical review. J Saudi Chem Soc. 2020;24(2):186–215.
42.
BottinoMCThomasVJanowskiGM.A novel spatially designed and functionally graded electrospun membrane for periodontal regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(1):216–224.
43.
XueJWuTDaiYElectrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: methods, materials, and applications. Chem Rev. 2019;119(8):5298–5415.
44.
UyarTKnyE.Electrospun materials for tissue engineering and biomedical applications: research, design and commercialization. Woodhead Publishing; 2017;146–177.
45.
YuXTangXGohilSVBiomaterials for bone regenerative engineering. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4(9):1268–1285.
46.
WuXMiaoLYaoYElectrospun fibrous scaffolds combined with nanoscale hydroxyapatite induce osteogenic differentiation of human periodontal ligament cells. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:4135.
47.
GoncalvesFde MoraesMSFerreiraLBCombination of bioactive polymeric membranes and stem cells for periodontal regeneration: in vitro and in vivo analyses. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152412.
48.
RoweMJKamockiKPankajakshanDDimensionally stable and bioactive membrane for guided bone regeneration: anin vitrostudy. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2016;104(3):594–605.
49.
ZhouTLiuXSuiBDevelopment of fish collagen/bioactive glass/chitosan composite nanofibers as a GTR/GBR membrane for inducing periodontal tissue regeneration. Biomed Mater. 2017;12(5):055004.
50.
BottinoMCArthurRAWaeissRABiodegradable nanofibrous drug delivery systems: effects of metronidazole and ciprofloxacin on periodontopathogens and commensal oral bacteria. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(9):2151–2158.
51.
WrightMEWongATLevittDInfluence of ciprofloxacin-based additives on the hydrolysis of nanofiber polyurethane membranes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2018;106(5):1211–1222.
52.
MünchowEAAlbuquerqueMTPZeroBDevelopment and characterization of novel ZnO-loaded electrospun membranes for periodontal regeneration. Dent Mater. 2015;31(9):1038–1051.
53.
FurtosGRiveroGRapunteanSAmoxicillin-loaded electrospun nanocomposite membranes for dental applications. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2017;105(5):966–976.
54.
YarMFarooqAShahzadiLNovel meloxicam releasing electrospun polymer/ceramic reinforced biodegradable membranes for periodontal regeneration applications. Mater Sci Eng: C. 2016;64:148–156.
55.
KharazihaMFathiMHEdrisHPCL-forsterite nanocomposite fibrous membranes for controlled release of dexamethasone. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2015;26(1):36.
56.
Ranjbar-MohammadiMZamaniMPrabhakaranMElectrospinning of PLGA/gum tragacanth nanofibers containing tetracycline hydrochloride for periodontal regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;58:521–531.
57.
HeMJiangHWangRFabrication of metronidazole loaded poly (ϵ-caprolactone)/zein core/shell nanofiber membranes via coaxial electrospinning for guided tissue regeneration. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2017;490:270–278.
58.
ChengGYinCTuHControlled co-delivery of growth factors through layer-by-layer assembly of core–shell nanofibers for improving bone regeneration. ACS Nano. 2019;13(6):6372–6382.
59.
YinLYangSHeMPhysicochemical and biological characteristics of BMP-2/IGF-1-loaded three-dimensional coaxial electrospun fibrous membranes for bone defect repair. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2017;28(6):94.
60.
HoM-HChangH-CChangY-CPDGF-metronidazole-encapsulated nanofibrous functional layers on collagen membrane promote alveolar ridge regeneration. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12:5525–5535.
61.
ReiseMWyrwaRMüllerURelease of metronidazole from electrospun poly(l-lactide-co-d/l-lactide) fibers for local periodontitis treatment. Dent Mater. 2012;28(2):179–188.
62.
HePZhongQGeYDual drug loaded coaxial electrospun PLGA/PVP fiber for guided tissue regeneration under control of infection. Mater Sci Eng C. 2018;90:549–556.
63.
ShahiRAlbuquerqueMMünchowENovel bioactive tetracycline-containing electrospun polymer fibers as a potential antibacterial dental implant coating. Odontology. 2017;105(3):354–363.
64.
JiaL-nZhangXXuH-yDevelopment of a doxycycline hydrochloride-loaded electrospun nanofibrous membrane for GTR/GBR applications. J Nanomat. 2016;2016:1–10.
65.
NasajpourAAnsariSRinoldiCA multifunctional polymeric periodontal membrane with osteogenic and antibacterial characteristics. Adv Funct Mater. 2018;28(3):1703437.
66.
NasajpourAMandlaSShreeSNanostructured fibrous membranes with rose spike-like architecture. Nano Lett. 2017;17(10):6235–6240.
67.
HokmabadVRDavaranSAghazadehMFabrication and characterization of novel ethyl cellulose-grafted-poly (ε-caprolactone)/alginate nanofibrous/macroporous scaffolds incorporated with nano-hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. J Biomater Appl. 2019;33(8):1128–1144.
68.
KoELeeJSKimHElectrospun silk fibroin nanofibrous scaffolds with two-stage hydroxyapatite functionalization for enhancing the osteogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018;10(9):7614–7625.
69.
WangZLiangRJiangXElectrospun PLGA/PCL/OCP nanofiber membranes promote osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2019;104:109796.
70.
DaghreryAAytacZDubeyNElectrospinning of dexamethasone/cyclodextrin inclusion complex polymer fibers for dental pulp therapy. Colloids Surf B. 2020: 111011.
71.
LiuWBiWSunYBiomimetic organic-inorganic hybrid hydrogel electrospinning periosteum for accelerating bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng. C. 2020;110:110670.
72.
AragónJSalernoSDe BartoloLPolymeric electrospun scaffolds for bone morphogenetic protein 2 delivery in bone tissue engineering. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2018;531:126–137.
73.
WangZWangZLuWWNovel biomaterial strategies for controlled growth factor delivery for biomedical applications. NPG Asia Mater. 2017;9(10):e435–e435.
74.
KowalczewskiCJSaulJM.Biomaterials for the delivery of growth factors and other therapeutic agents in tissue engineering approaches to bone regeneration. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:513.
75.
HutmacherDWDaltonPD.Melt electrospinning. Chem–Asian J. 2011;6(1):44–56.
76.
KadeJCDaltonPD.Polymers for melt electrowriting. Adv Healthc Mater. 2020;10(1):2001232.
77.
PeifferQCde RuijterMvan DuijnJMelt electrowriting onto anatomically relevant biodegradable substrates: resurfacing a diarthrodial joint. Mater Des. 2020;195:109025.
78.
AbbasiNIvanovskiSGulatiKRole of offset and gradient architectures of 3-D melt electrowritten scaffold on differentiation and mineralization of osteoblasts. Biomater Res. 2020;24(1):2.
79.
IgawaKChungUTeiY.Custom-made artificial bones fabricated by an inkjet printing technology. Clin Calcium. 2008;18(12):1737.
80.
AtalaAYooJJ.Essentials of 3D biofabrication and translation. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2015.
81.
PlaconeJKEnglerAJ.Recent advances in extrusion-based 3D printing for biomedical applications. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018;7(8):1701161.
82.
ShimJ-HKimSEParkJYThree-dimensional printing of rhbmp-2-loaded scaffolds with long-term delivery for enhanced bone regeneration in a rabbit diaphyseal defect. Tissue Eng, Part A. 2014;20(13-14):1980–1992.
83.
ShimJ-HYoonM-CJeongC-MEfficacy of rhBMP-2 loaded PCL/PLGA/β-TCP guided bone regeneration membrane fabricated by 3D printing technology for reconstruction of calvaria defects in rabbit. Biomed Mater. 2014;9(6):065006.
84.
CostaPFPugaAMDíaz-GomezLAdditive manufacturing of scaffolds with dexamethasone controlled release for enhanced bone regeneration. Int J Pharm. 2015;496(2):541–550.
85.
WonJParkCBaeJEvaluation of 3D printed PCL/PLGA/β-TCP versus collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration in a beagle implant model. Biomed Mater. 2016;11(5):055013.
86.
KimGAhnSKimYCoaxial structured collagen–alginate scaffolds: fabrication, physical properties, and biomedical application for skin tissue regeneration. J Mater Chem. 2011;21(17):6165–6172.
87.
MaldaJVisserJMelchelsFP25th anniversary article: engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater. 2013;25(36):5011–5028.
88.
ShimJ-HJeongJ-hWonJ-YPorosity effect of 3D-printed polycaprolactone membranes on calvarial defect model for guided bone regeneration. Biomed Mater. 2018;13(1):015014.
89.
WangMFaviPChengXCold atmospheric plasma (CAP) surface nanomodified 3D printed polylactic acid (PLA) scaffolds for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2016;46:256–265.
90.
YuJXuYLiSThree-dimensional printing of nano hydroxyapatite/poly(ester urea) composite scaffolds with enhanced bioactivity. Biomacromolecules. 2017;18(12):4171–4183.
91.
KwonDYParkJHJangSHBone regeneration by means of a three-dimensional printed scaffold in a rat cranial defect. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2018;12(2):516–528.
92.
ParkSHParkSAKangYGPCL/β-TCP composite scaffolds exhibit positive osteogenic differentiation with mechanical stimulation. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017;14(4):349–358.
93.
PohPSHutmacherDWHolzapfelBMIn vitro and in vivo bone formation potential of surface calcium phosphate-coated polycaprolactone and polycaprolactone/bioactive glass composite scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2016;30:319–333.
94.
CuiHZhuWHolmesBBiologically inspired smart release system based on 3D bioprinted perfused scaffold for vascularized tissue regeneration. Adv Sci. 2016;3(8):1600058.
95.
VaquetteCSaifzadehSFaragAPeriodontal tissue engineering with a multiphasic construct and cell sheets. J Dent Res. 2019;98(6):673–681.
96.
LeeCHHajibandehJSuzukiTThree-dimensional printed multiphase scaffolds for regeneration of periodontium complex. Tissue Eng, Part A. 2014;20(7-8):1342–1351.
97.
Muerza-CascanteMLShokoohmandAKhosrotehraniKEndosteal-like extracellular matrix expression on melt electrospun written scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2017;52:145–158.
98.
HochleitnerGKesslerMSchmitzMMelt electrospinning writing of defined scaffolds using polylactide-poly(ethylene glycol) blends with 45S5 bioactive glass particles. Mater Lett. 2017;205:257–260.
99.
Abdal-hayAAbbasiNGwiazdaMNovel polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite fibrous scaffolds by direct melt-electrospinning writing. Eur Polym J. 2018;105:257–264.
100.
HochleitnerGChenFBlumCMelt electrowriting below the critical translation speed to fabricate crimped elastomer scaffolds with non-linear extension behaviour mimicking that of ligaments and tendons. Acta Biomater. 2018;72:110–120.
101.
BaldwinJWagnerFMartineLPeriosteum tissue engineering in an orthotopic in vivo platform. Biomaterials. 2017;121:193–204.
102.
Di LucaAOstrowskaBLorenzo-MolderoIUltrastructural characterization of the lower motor system in a mouse model of Krabbe disease. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):1–13.
103.
YangCWangXMaB3D-Printed bioactive Ca3SiO5Bone cement scaffolds with nano surface structure for bone regeneration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9(7):5757–5767.
104.
Martínez-VázquezFCabañasMParisJFabrication of novel Si-doped hydroxyapatite/gelatine scaffolds by rapid prototyping for drug delivery and bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2015;15:200–209.
105.
LuoGMaYCuiX13-93 bioactive glass/alginate composite scaffolds 3D printed under mild conditions for bone regeneration. RSC Adv. 2017;7(20):11880–11889.
106.
ZhaoSZhangJZhuMThree-dimensional printed strontium-containing mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for repairing rat critical-sized calvarial defects. Acta Biomater. 2015;12:270–280.
107.
FahimipourFDashtimoghadamERasoulianboroujeniMCollagenous matrix supported by a 3D-printed scaffold for osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp cells. Dent Mater. 2018;34(2):209–220.
108.
LiuASunMYangXThree-dimensional printing akermanite porous scaffolds for load-bearing bone defect repair: An investigation of osteogenic capability and mechanical evolution. J Biomater Appl. 2016;31(5):650–660.
109.
ZhangWFengCYangG3D-printed scaffolds with synergistic effect of hollow-pipe structure and bioactive ions for vascularized bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 2017;135:85–95.
110.
FengCZhangWDengC3D printing of lotus root-like biomimetic materials for cell delivery and tissue regeneration. Advanced Science. 2017;4(12):1700401.
WangHWuGZhangJOsteogenic effect of controlled released rhBMP-2 in 3D printed porous hydroxyapatite scaffold. Colloids Surf B. 2016;141:491–498.
114.
LiCJiangCDengYRor2 signaling regulates Golgi structure and transport through IFT20 for tumor invasiveness. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–12.
115.
BekiszJMFloresRLWitekLDipyridamole enhances osteogenesis of three-dimensionally printed bioactive ceramic scaffolds in calvarial defects. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2018;46(2):237–244.
116.
LuoYZhaiDHuanZThree-Dimensional Printing of hollow-struts-packed bioceramic scaffolds for bone regeneration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015;7(43):24377–24383.
117.
ShaoHSunMZhangFCustom repair of mandibular bone defects with 3D printed bioceramic scaffolds. J Dent Res. 2018;97(1):68–76.
LaiYCaoHWangXPorous composite scaffold incorporating osteogenic phytomolecule icariin for promoting skeletal regeneration in challenging osteonecrotic bone in rabbits. Biomaterials. 2018;153:1–13.
120.
FedorovichNEDe WijnJRVerboutAJThree-dimensional fiber deposition of cell-laden, viable, patterned constructs for bone tissue printing. Tissue Eng, Part A. 2008;14(1):127–133.
121.
KimWKimG.Collagen/bioceramic-based composite bioink to fabricate a porous 3D hASCs-laden structure for bone tissue regeneration. Biofabrication. 2020;12(1):015007.
122.
ChimeneDMillerLCrossLMNanoengineered osteoinductive bioink for 3D bioprinting bone tissue. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12(14):15976–15988.
123.
CarlierASkvortsovGAHafeziFComputational model-informed design and bioprinting of cell-patterned constructs for bone tissue engineering. Biofabrication. 2016;8(2):025009.
124.
LinHYChangTWPengTK.Three-dimensional plotted alginate fibers embedded with diclofenac and bone cells coated with chitosan for bone regeneration during inflammation. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2018;106(6):1511–1521.
125.
MalihaSGLopezCDCoelhoPGBone tissue engineering in the growing calvaria using dipyridamole-coated, three-dimensionally-printed bioceramic scaffolds. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):337e.
126.
PilipchukSPMonjeAJiaoYIntegration of 3D printed and micropatterned polycaprolactone scaffolds for guidance of oriented collagenous tissue formation In vivo. Adv Healthc Mater. 2016;5(6):676–687.
127.
Gómez-CerezoNCasarrubiosLSaiz-PardoMMesoporous bioactive glass/ε-polycaprolactone scaffolds promote bone regeneration in osteoporotic sheep. Acta Biomater. 2019;90:393–402.
128.
FengXWuYBaoFComparison of 3D-printed mesoporous calcium silicate/polycaprolactone and mesoporous bioacive glass/polycaprolactone scaffolds for bone regeneration. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2019;278:348–353.
129.
LeeJFaragMMParkEKA simultaneous process of 3D magnesium phosphate scaffold fabrication and bioactive substance loading for hard tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C. 2014;36:252–260.
130.
GbureckUHölzelTKlammertUResorbable dicalcium phosphate bone substitutes prepared by 3D powder printing. Adv Funct Mater. 2007;17(18):3940–3945.
131.
CastilhoMDiasMVorndranEApplication of a 3D printed customized implant for canine cruciate ligament treatment by tibial tuberosity advancement. Biofabrication. 2014;6(2):025005.
132.
DiloksumpanPde RuijterMCastilhoMCombining multi-scale 3D printing technologies to engineer reinforced hydrogel-ceramic interfaces. Biofabrication. 2020;12(2):025014.
133.
DengYJiangCLiCRor2 signaling regulates Golgi structure and transport through IFT20 for tumor invasiveness. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–14.
134.
SubbiahRHipfingerCTahayeriA3D printing of microgel-loaded modular microcages as instructive scaffolds for tissue engineering. Adv Mater. 2020;32(36):2001736.
135.
WangMMFloresRLWitekLDipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity.. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–15.
136.
ParkCHKimK-HLeeY-M3D printed, microgroove pattern-driven generation of oriented ligamentous architectures. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(9):1927.
137.
WitekLAlifaragAMTovarNRepair of critical-sized long bone defects using dipyridamole-augmented 3D-printed bioactive ceramic scaffolds. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(12):2499–2507.
138.
ZhangMLinRWangX3D printing of Haversian bone–mimicking scaffolds for multicellular delivery in bone regeneration. Sci Adv. 2020;6(12):eaaz6725.
139.
VorndranEKlammertUEwaldASimultaneous immobilization of bioactives during 3D powder printing of bioceramic drug-release matrices. Adv Funct Mater. 2010;20(10):1585–1591.
140.
YanYChenHZhangHVascularized 3D printed scaffolds for promoting bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 2019;190:97–110.
141.
CrumpSS. Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects. 1992, Google Patents.
142.
YoussefAHollisterSJDaltonPD.Additive manufacturing of polymer melts for implantable medical devices and scaffolds. Biofabrication. 2017;9(1):012002.
143.
NgoTDKashaniAImbalzanoGAdditive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B: Eng. 2018;143:172–196.
144.
HongJMKimBJShimJ-HEnhancement of bone regeneration through facile surface functionalization of solid freeform fabrication-based three-dimensional scaffolds using mussel adhesive proteins. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(7):2578–2586.
145.
MwemaFMAkinlabiET. ‘Basics of fused deposition modelling (FDM)’, in ‘Fused deposition modeling’, 1–15; 2020, Springer.
146.
KimKLeeCKimBAnatomically shaped tooth and periodontal regeneration by cell homing. J Dent Res. 2010;89(8):842–847.
147.
OladapoBIZahediSAdeoyeA.3D printing of bone scaffolds with hybrid biomaterials. Compos B: Eng. 2019;158:428–436.
148.
GoncalvesEMOliveiraFJSilvaRFThree-dimensional printed PCL-hydroxyapatite scaffolds filled with CNTs for bone cell growth stimulation. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater. 2016;104(6):1210–1219.
149.
VaquetteCFanWXiaoYA biphasic scaffold design combined with cell sheet technology for simultaneous regeneration of alveolar bone/periodontal ligament complex. Biomaterials. 2012;33(22):5560–5573.
AbbasiNAbdal-HayAHamletS.Effects of gradient and offset architectures on the mechanical and biological properties of 3-D melt electrowritten (MEW) scaffolds. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019;5:3448–3461.
152.
VisserJMelchelsFPJeonJEReinforcement of hydrogels using three-dimensionally printed microfibres. Nat Commun. 2015;6(1):1–10.
GuZFuJLinHDevelopment of 3D bioprinting: from printing methods to biomedical applications. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2019;15(5):529–557.
155.
VozziGFlaimCJBianchiFMicrofabricated PLGA scaffolds: a comparative study for application to tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2002;20(1-2):43–47.
156.
HospodiukMDeyMSosnoskiDThe bioink: A comprehensive review on bioprintable materials. Biotechnol Adv. 2017;35(2):217–239.
157.
DuXFuSZhuY.3D printing of ceramic-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: an overview. J Mater Chem B. 2018;6(27):4397–4412.
158.
HeYYangFZhaoHResearch on the printability of hydrogels in 3D bioprinting. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29977.
159.
LabateGFDUCatapanoGVitale-BrovaroneCQuantifying the micro-architectural similarity of bioceramic scaffolds to bone. Ceram Int. 2017;43(12):9443–9450.
160.
ChristelTKuhlmannMVorndranEDual setting α-tricalcium phosphate cements. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2013;24(3):573–581.
161.
CastilhoMMosekeCEwaldADirect 3D powder printing of biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds for substitution of complex bone defects. Biofabrication. 2014;6(1):015006.
162.
De WitteT-MFratila-ApachiteiLEZadpoorAABone tissue engineering via growth factor delivery: from scaffolds to complex matrices. Regen Biomater. 2018;5(4):197–211.
163.
FengCZhangMBhandariB.Materials properties of printable edible inks and printing parameters Optimization during 3D printing: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2019;59(19):3074–3081.
164.
ParentMBaradariHChampionEDesign of calcium phosphate ceramics for drug delivery applications in bone diseases: a review of the parameters affecting the loading and release of the therapeutic substance. J Controlled Release. 2017;252:1–17.
165.
PaulWSharmaCP.Ceramic drug delivery: a perspective. J Biomater Appl. 2003;17(4):253–264.
166.
CaoXChenD.The BMP signaling and in vivo bone formation. Gene. 2005;357(1):1–8.
167.
GrollJBolandTBlunkTBiofabrication: reappraising the definition of an evolving field. Biofabrication. 2016;8(1):013001.
168.
MurphySVAtalaA.3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(8):773–785.
169.
MöllerTAmorosoMHäggDIn vivo chondrogenesis in 3D bioprinted human cell-laden hydrogel constructs. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(2).
170.
GrollJBurdickJAChoD-WA definition of bioinks and their distinction from biomaterial inks. Biofabrication. 2019;11(1):013001.
171.
TibbittMWAnsethKS.Hydrogels as extracellular matrix mimics for 3D cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2009;103(4):655–663.
172.
ZhangH-BXingT-LYinR-XThree-dimensional bioprinting is not only about cell-laden structures. Chin J Traumatol. 2016;19(4):187–192.
173.
Asa’adFPagniGPilipchukSP3D-Printed scaffolds and biomaterials: review of alveolar bone augmentation and periodontal regeneration applications. Int J Dent. 2016: 2016:1239842.
174.
SwethaSLavanyaKSruthiRAn insight into cell-laden 3D-printed constructs for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2020;8(43):9836–9862.
175.
Sadat-ShojaiMKhorasaniM-TJamshidiA.3-Dimensional cell-laden nano-hydroxyapatite/protein hydrogels for bone regeneration applications. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;49:835–843.
176.
JamesAWLaChaudGShenJA review of the clinical side effects of bone morphogenetic protein-2. Tissue Eng B: Rev. 2016;22(4):284–297.
177.
XuTBinderKWAlbannaMZHybrid printing of mechanically and biologically improved constructs for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biofabrication. 2013;5(1):015001.
178.
CostaPFVaquetteCZhangQAdvanced tissue engineering scaffold design for regeneration of the complex hierarchical periodontal structure. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(3):283–294.
179.
HintonTJJalleratQPalcheskoRNThree-dimensional printing of complex biological structures by freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels. Sci Adv. 2015;1(9):e1500758.
180.
DurmusNGTekinHCGuvenSMagnetic levitation of single cells. ProcNatl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(28):E3661–E3668.
181.
BetschMCristianCLinYYIncorporating 4D into bioprinting: real-time magnetically directed collagen fiber alignment for generating complex multilayered tissues. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018;7(21):1800894.
182.
LiuFWangWMirihanageWA plasma-assisted bioextrusion system for tissue engineering. CIRP Ann. 2018;67(1):229–232.
183.
WüstSMüllerRHofmannS.Controlled positioning of cells in biomaterials – approaches towards 3D tissue printing. J Funct Biomater. 2011;2(3):119–154.
184.
MaLWangXZhaoNIntegrating 3D printing and biomimetic mineralization for personalized enhanced osteogenesis, angiogenesis, and osteointegration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018;10(49):42146–42154.
185.
LiYBaiYPanJA hybrid 3D-printed aspirin-laden liposome composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2019;7(4):619–629.
186.
ParkCHRiosHFTautADImage-based, fiber guiding scaffolds: a platform for regenerating tissue interfaces. Tissue Eng C: Methods. 2014;20(7):533–542.
