This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the literature on 3D printing for osteochondral repair and regeneration, aiming to explore the current research landscape, key emerging topics, and future trends in this field. English-language publications on 3D printing technology and osteochondral repair, published between 2010 and 2024, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The search, conducted on May 1, 2024, followed a structured strategy. Bibliometric analysis was performed on 287 scholarly articles using the Bibliometrix package in R, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace. The study demonstrates a steady increase in global research activity, as reflected by the rising annual and cumulative publication rates in this field. China and the United States dominate in international collaboration, publication output, and funding investment. Collaborative networks between authors, institutions, and countries have played a pivotal role in advancing the development of 3D printing technology for osteochondral repair. The journal Biofabrication serves as the leading platform for disseminating research findings. Wu Chengtie is identified as the most prolific author, with “mesenchymal stem cell” emerging as the most prominent keyword. Research to date has focused on various types of mesenchymal stem cells, 3D printing technologies, and osteogenic differentiation, while future studies are anticipated to prioritize growth factor delivery, 3D bioprinting, and interface tissue engineering. This analysis highlights the advantages, limitations, and future prospects of osteochondral repair, a field at the intersection of medicine and engineering. The findings provide valuable insights to guide researchers in further advancing this rapidly emerging area.
YildirimN, AmanzhanovaA, KulzhanovaG, et al.Osteochondral interface: Regenerative engineering and challenges. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2023; 9(3):1205–1223.
2.
GadjanskiI, Vunjak-NovakovicG. Challenges in engineering osteochondral tissue grafts with hierarchical structures. Expert Opin Biol Ther, 2015; 15(11):1583–1599.
3.
ChenR, PyeJS, LiJ, et al.Multiphasic scaffolds for the repair of osteochondral defects: Outcomes of preclinical studies. Bioact Mater, 2023; 27:505–545.
4.
HuberM, TrattnigS, LintnerF. Anatomy, biochemistry, and physiology of articular cartilage. Invest Radiol, 2000; 35(10):573–580.
5.
JacobG, ShimomuraK, NakamuraN. Osteochondral injury, management and tissue engineering approaches. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2020; 8:580868.
6.
SharmaAR, JaggaS, LeeS-S, et al.Interplay between cartilage and subchondral bone contributing to pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Int J Mol Sci, 2013; 14(10):19805–19830.
7.
LiG, YinJ, GaoJ, et al.Subchondral bone in osteoarthritis: Insight into risk factors and microstructural changes. Arthritis Res Ther, 2013; 15(6):223.
8.
McGonagleD, BaboolalTG, JonesE. Native joint-resident mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage repair in osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol, 2017; 13(12):719–730.
9.
Lafuente-MerchanM, Ruiz-AlonsoS, García-VillénF, et al.Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for osteochondral regeneration. Pharmaceutics, 2022; 14(8):1578.
10.
YaoQ, WuX, TaoC, et al.Osteoarthritis: Pathogenic signaling pathways and therapeutic targets. Signal Transduct Target Ther, 2023; 8(1):56.
11.
BijlsmaJW, BerenbaumF, LafeberFP. Osteoarthritis: An update with relevance for clinical practice. Lancet, 2011; 377(9783):2115–2126.
MuthuS, KorpershoekJV, NovaisEJ, et al.Failure of cartilage regeneration: Emerging hypotheses and related therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Rheumatol, 2023; 19(7):403–416.
14.
JiangS, GuoW, TianG, et al.Clinical application status of articular cartilage regeneration techniques: Tissue-engineered cartilage brings new hope. Stem Cells Int, 2020; 2020:5690252.
15.
FuJ-N, WangX, YangM, et al.Scaffold-based tissue engineering strategies for osteochondral repair. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2021; 9:812383.
16.
PowersRT, DowdTC, GizaE. Surgical treatment for osteochondral lesions of the talus. Arthroscopy, 2021; 37(12):3393–3396.
17.
YangJ, ZhangYS, YueK, et al.Cell-laden hydrogels for osteochondral and cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater, 2017; 57:1–25.
18.
DalyAC, FreemanFE, Gonzalez‐FernandezT, et al.3D bioprinting for cartilage and osteochondral tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater, 2017; 6(22):1700298.
19.
HuangBJ, HuJC, AthanasiouKA. Cell-based tissue engineering strategies used in the clinical repair of articular cartilage. Biomaterials, 2016; 98:1–22.
20.
XuJ, JiJ, JiaoJ, et al.3D printing for bone-cartilage interface regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022; 10:828921.
21.
VijayavenkataramanS, YanW-C, LuWF, et al.3D bioprinting of tissues and organs for regenerative medicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 2018; 132:296–332.
22.
YangZ, LiJ, DengH, et al.Visualization and bibliometric analysis of 3D printing in cartilage regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2023; 11:1214715.
23.
LiZ, JiaS, XiongZ, et al.3D-printed scaffolds with calcified layer for osteochondral tissue engineering. J Biosci Bioeng, 2018; 126(3):389–396.
24.
DonthuN, KumarS, MukherjeeD, et al.How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 2021; 133:285–296.
25.
HirschJE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2005; 102(46):16569–16572.
26.
Van EckN, WaltmanL. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 2010; 84(2):523–538.
27.
GuzmánMV. CHEN, CHAOMEI, CiteSpace: A Practical Guide for Mapping Scientific Literature. Nova Science: Hauppauge, NY; 2016, p. 169. isbn: 978-1-53610-280-2: EBook: 978-1-53610-295-6 [CiteSpace: Una guía práctica para el mapeo de la literatura científica]. Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información, 2018; 31:293–295; doi: 10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2017.nesp1.57894
28.
NakagawaS, AndoW, ShimomuraK, et al.Repair of osteochondral defects: Efficacy of a tissue-engineered hybrid implant containing both human MSC and human iPSC-cartilaginous particles. NPJ Regen Med, 2023; 8(1):59.
29.
YangZ, YiP, LiuZ, et al.Stem cell-laden hydrogel-based 3D bioprinting for bone and cartilage tissue engineering. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022; 10:865770.
30.
DalyAC, PitaccoP, NultyJM, et al.3D printed microchannel networks to direct vascularisation during endochondral bone repair. Biomaterials, 2018; 162:34–46.
31.
LiuY-Z, PengL, LiL, et al.3D-bioprinted BMSC-laden biomimetic multiphasic scaffolds for efficient repair of osteochondral defects in an osteoarthritic rat model. Biomaterials, 2021; 279:121216.
32.
YamasakiA, KunitomiY, MurataD, et al.Osteochondral regeneration using constructs of mesenchymal stem cells made by bio three-dimensional printing in mini‐pigs. Journal Orthopaedic Research, 2019; 37(6):1398–1408.
33.
di BellaC, FosangAJ, DonatiDM, et al.3D bioprinting of cartilage for orthopedic surgeons: Reading between the lines. Front Surg, 2015; 2:39.
34.
OuyangL, ArmstrongJPK, LinY, et al.Expanding and optimizing 3D bioprinting capabilities using complementary network bioinks. Sci Adv, 2020; 6(38).
35.
LiX, LiuB, PeiB, et al.Inkjet bioprinting of biomaterials. Chem Rev, 2020; 120(19):10793–10833; doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00008
36.
WangS, ZhaoS, YuJ, et al.Advances in translational 3D printing for cartilage, bone, and osteochondral tissue engineering. Small, 2022; 18(36):e2201869.
37.
CastilhoM, de RuijterM, BeirneS, et al.Multitechnology biofabrication: A new approach for the manufacturing of functional tissue structures? Trends in Biotechnology, 2020; 49:68–84; doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2021.04.016
38.
QinC, MaJ, ChenL, et al.3D bioprinting of multicellular scaffolds for osteochondral regeneration. Materials Today, 2021; 38(12):1316–1328; doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.04.014
39.
ChenT, BaiJ, TianJ, et al.A single integrated osteochondral in situ composite scaffold with a multi-layered functional structure. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2018; 167:354–363.
40.
KangH, ZengY, VargheseS. Functionally graded multilayer scaffolds for in vivo osteochondral tissue engineering. Acta Biomater, 2018; 78:365–377.
41.
RadhakrishnanJ, ManigandanA, ChinnaswamyP, et al.Gradient nano-engineered in situ forming composite hydrogel for osteochondral regeneration. Biomaterials, 2018; 162:82–98.
42.
D’AmbrosiR, ValliF, De LucaP, et al.MaioRegen osteochondral substitute for the treatment of knee defects: A systematic review of the literature. J Clin Med, 2019; 8(6):783.
43.
VerhaegenJ, ClockaertsS, Van OschG, et al.TruFit plug for repair of osteochondral defects—where is the evidence? Systematic review of literature. Cartilage, 2015; 6(1):12–19.
44.
WangG, LvZ, WangT, et al.Surface functionalization of hydroxyapatite scaffolds with MgAlEu‐LDH nanosheets for high‐performance bone regeneration. Advanced Science, 2023; 10(1).
45.
GargTK, GoyalAK. Biomaterial-based scaffolds—Current status and future directions. Expert Opin Drug Deliv, 2014; 11(5):767–789.
46.
DormerNH, SinghMK, WangL, et al.Osteochondral interface tissue engineering using macroscopic gradients of bioactive signals. Ann Biomed Eng, 2010; 38(6):2167–2182.
47.
LuS, LamJ, TrachtenbergJE, et al.Dual growth factor delivery from bilayered, biodegradable hydrogel composites for spatially-guided osteochondral tissue repair. Biomaterials, 2014; 35(31):8829–8839.
48.
WeiJ, RanP, LiQ-G, et al.Hierarchically structured injectable hydrogels with loaded cell spheroids for cartilage repairing and osteoarthritis treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022; 430(1):132211; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.132211
