Human body comprises of different internal and external biological components. Human organs tend to fail due to continuous or sudden stress which leads to deterioration, failure, and dislocation. The choice of selection and fabrication of materials for tissue engineering play a key role in terms of suitability, sensitivity, and functioning with other organs as a replacement for failed organs. The progressive improvement of the additive manufacturing (AM) approach in healthcare made it possible to print multi-material and customized complex/intricate geometries in a layer-by-layer fashion. The customized or patient-specific implant fabrication can be easily produced with a high success rate due to the development of AM technologies with tailorable properties. The structural behavior of 3D printed biomaterials is a crucial factor in tissue engineering as they affect the functionality of the implants. Various techniques have been developed in appraising the important features and the effects of the subsequent design of the biomaterial implants. The behavior of the AM built biomaterial implants can be understood visually by an imaging system with a high spatial and spectral resolution. This review intends to present an overview of various biomaterials used in implants, followed by a detailed description of optical 3D printing procedures and evaluation of the performance of 3D printed biomaterials using optical characterization.
Moreno MadridAPVrechSMSanchezMA, et al. Advances in additive manufacturing for bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C2019; 100: 631–644.
2.
MozafariMRajadasJKaplanD. Nanoengineered biomaterials for regenerative medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2018.
3.
JiangSWangMHeJ. A review of biomimetic scaffolds for bone regeneration: toward a cell-free strategy. Bioeng Transl Med2021; 6: e10206.
4.
MaiaFRCarvalhoMROliveiraJM, et al. Tissue engineering strategies for osteochondral repair. Adv Exp Med Biol2018; 1059: 353–371.
5.
WhatleyBRKuoJShuaiC, et al. Fabrication of a biomimetic elastic intervertebral disk scaffold using additive manufacturing. Biofabrication2011; 3: 015004.
6.
WangYGuoYWeiQ, et al. Current researches on design and manufacture of biopolymer-based osteochondral biomimetic scaffolds. Bio-Des Manuf2021; 4: 541–567.
7.
McNultyTBhateDZhangA, et al. A framework for the design of biomimetic cellular materials for additive manufacturing. In: BourellDLCrawfordRHSeepersadCC, et al. Proceedings of the 28th annual international solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, USA, University of Texas at Austin Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication, University of Texas at Austin Advanced Manufacturing and Design Center, 7–9 August 2017, pp.2188–2200.
8.
ZhuLLuoDLiuY. Effect of the nano/microscale structure of biomaterial scaffolds on bone regeneration. Int J Oral Sci2020; 12: 1–15.
9.
ParleEDirksJ-HTaylorD. Damage, repair and regeneration in insect cuticle: the story so far, and possibilities for the future. Arthropod Struct Dev2017; 46: 49–55.
Fernandez deGrado GKellerLIdoux-GilletY, et al. Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management. J Tissue Eng2018; 9: 2041731418776819.
12.
ChenFMLiuX. Advancing biomaterials of human origin for tissue engineering. Prog Polym Sci2016; 53: 86–168.
13.
OsmanRBSwainMV. A critical review of dental implant materials with an emphasis on titanium versus zirconia. Materials2015; 8: 932–958.
14.
VeluRCalaisTJayakumarA, et al. A comprehensive review on bio-nanomaterials for medical implants and feasibility studies on fabrication of such implants by additive manufacturing technique. Materials2019; 13: 92.
15.
El-WazeryMSEl-DesoukyARHamedOA, et al. Preparation and mechanical properties of zirconia/nickel functionally graded materials. Arab J Nucl Sci Appl2012; 45: 435–446.
16.
AfzalMAFKesarwaniPReddyKM, et al. Functionally graded hydroxyapatite-alumina-zirconia biocomposite: synergy of toughness and biocompatibility. Mater Sci Eng C2012; 32: 1164–1173.
17.
QuanZWuAKeefeM, et al. Additive manufacturing of multi-directional preforms for composites: opportunities and challenges. Mater Today2015; 18: 503–512.
18.
LiuYWangWZhangLC. Additive manufacturing techniques and their biomedical applications. Fam Med Commun Health2017; 5: 286–298.
19.
VargheseV. Finite element-based design of hip joint prosthesis. Master Thesis, 2011.
20.
RubanWVijayakumarVDhanabalP, et al. Effective process parameters in selective laser sintering. Int J Rapid Manuf2014; 4: 148–164.
21.
SelvamAMayilswamySWhenishR, et al. Preparation and evaluation of the tensile characteristics of carbon fiber rod reinforced 3D printed thermoplastic composites. J Compos Sci2020; 5: 8.
22.
SelvamAMayilswamySWhenishR. Strength improvement of additive manufacturing components by reinforcing carbon fiber and by employing bioinspired interlock sutures. J Vinyl Addit Technol2020; 26(4): 511–523.
23.
SrinivasanRRubanWDeepanrajA, et al. Effect on infill density on mechanical properties of PETG part fabricated by fused deposition modelling. Mater Today Proc2020; 27: 1838–1842.
24.
SrinivasanRPridharTRamprasathLS, et al. Prediction of tensile strength in FDM printed ABS parts using response surface methodology (RSM). Mater Today Proc2020; 27: 1827–1832.
25.
ManiMLyonsKWGuptaSK. Sustainability characterization for additive manufacturing. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol2014; 119: 419–428.
26.
WhenishRRamakrishnaSJaiswalAK, et al. A framework for the sustainability implications of 3D bioprinting through nature-inspired materials and structures. Bio-Des Manuf2022; 5(2): 412–423.
27.
WhenishRVeluRAnand KumarS, et al. Additive manufacturing technologies for biomedical implants using functional biocomposites. In: Praveen KumarASadasivuniKKAlMangourB, et al. (eds) High-performance composite structures: Additive Manufacturing and Processing. Singapore: Springer, 2022, pp.25–44.
28.
MahmoudDElbestawiM. Lattice structures and functionally graded materials applications in additive manufacturing of orthopedic implants: a review. J Manuf Mater Process2017; 1: 13–19.
29.
WhenishRAntonyMBalajiT, et al. Design and performance of additively manufactured lightweight bionic hand. AIP Conf Proc2021; 2317(1): 020028.
30.
VeluRSingamneniS. Selective laser sintering of polymer biocomposites based on polymethyl methacrylate. J Mater Res2014; 29: 1883–1892.
31.
HanXYangDYangC, et al. Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composites based on 3D-Printing technology for orthopedic and dental applications. J Clin Med2019; 8: 240.
32.
AhangarPCookeMEWeberMH, et al. Current biomedical applications of 3D printing and additive manufacturing. Appl Sci2019; 9(8): 1713.
33.
WilkesJHagedornYMeinersW, et al. Additive manufacturing of ZrO2-Al2O3 ceramic components by selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J2013; 19: 51–57.
34.
HegabHA. Design for additive manufacturing of composite materials and potential alloys: a review. Manuf Rev2016; 3: 11.
35.
WilliamsDF. Implants in dental and maxillofacial surgery. Biomaterials1981; 2: 133–146.
36.
AnanthHKundapurVMohammedHS, et al. A review on biomaterials in dental implantology. Int J Biomed Sci2015; 11: 113–120.
37.
SainiMSinghYAroraP, et al. Implant biomaterials: a comprehensive review. World J Clin Cases2015; 3: 52–57.
38.
DuraccioDMussanoFFagaMG. Biomaterials for dental implants: current and future trends. J Mater Sci2015; 50: 4779–4812.
39.
RuppFLiangLGeis-GerstorferJ, et al. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater2018; 34: 40–57.
40.
SeredinPVGoloshchapovDLPrutskijT, et al. Fabrication and characterisation of composites materials similar optically and in composition to native dental tissues. Results Phys2017; 7: 1086–1094.
41.
CurtisRWatsonTF. Dental biomaterials: imaging, testing and modelling. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014.
42.
Rodríguez TruebaPAmadoJM, et al. Surface modification of porous titanium discs using femtosecond laser structuring. Metals2020; 10: 748.
43.
HieuLCZlatovNvander SlotenJ, et al. Medical rapid prototyping applications and methods. Assembly Automation2005; 25(4): 284–292.
44.
López-ValverdeNLópez-ValverdeAAragonesesJM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of calcium-phosphate coating on the osseointegration of titanium implants. Materials2021; 14: 3015.
45.
MaconachieTLearyMLozanovskiB, et al. SLM lattice structures: properties, performance, applications and challenges. Mater Des2019; 183: 108137.
46.
ShaikhMQGraziosiSAtreSV. Supportless printing of lattice structures by metal fused filament fabrication (MF3) of Ti-6Al-4V: design and analysis. Rapid Prototyp J2021; 27: 1408–1422.
47.
RaheemAAHameedPWhenishR, et al. A review on development of bio-inspired implants using 3D printing. Biomimetics2021; 6(4): 65.
48.
HribarKCSomanPWarnerJ, et al. Light-assisted direct-write of 3D functional biomaterials. Lab Chip2014; 14: 268–275.
49.
ZhuangZHoHP. Application of digital micromirror devices (DMD) in biomedical instruments. J Innov Opt Health Sci2020; 13(6): 2030011.
50.
GauvinRChenY-CLeeJW, et al. Microfabrication of complex porous tissue engineering scaffolds using 3D projection stereolithography. Biomaterials2012; 33: 3824–3834.
51.
ChanVZorlutunaPJeongJH, et al. Three-dimensional photopatterning of hydrogels using stereolithography for long-term cell encapsulation. Lab Chip2010; 10: 2062–2070.
52.
GaebelRMaNLiuJ, et al. Patterning human stem cells and endothelial cells with laser printing for cardiac regeneration. Biomaterials2011; 32: 9218–9230.
53.
KajiHCamci-UnalGLangerR, et al. Engineering systems for the generation of patterned co-cultures for controlling cell–cell interactions. Biochim Biophys Acta2011; 1810: 239–250.
54.
MillerJSStevensKRYangMT, et al. Rapid casting of patterned vascular networks for perfusable engineered three-dimensional tissues. Nat Mater2012; 11: 768–774.
55.
SouzaGRMolinaJRRaphaelRM, et al. Three-dimensional tissue culture based on magnetic cell levitation. Nat Nanotechnol2010; 5: 291–296.
56.
TorisawaYSMosadeghBLukerGD, et al. Microfluidic hydrodynamic cellular patterning for systematic formation of co-culture spheroids. Integr Biol2009; 1: 649–654.
57.
TungYCHsiaoAYAllenSG, et al. High-throughput 3D spheroid culture and drug testing using a 384 hanging drop array. Analyst2011; 136: 473–478.
58.
LuYMapiliGSuhaliG, et al. A digital micro-mirror device-based system for the microfabrication of complex, spatially patterned tissue engineering scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A2006; 77: 396–405.
59.
GroganSPChungPHSomanP, et al. Digital micromirror device projection printing system for meniscus tissue engineering. Acta Biomater2013; 9: 7218–7226.
60.
MaXQuXZhuW, et al. Deterministically patterned biomimetic human iPSC-derived hepatic model via rapid 3D bioprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(8): 2206–2211.
61.
LiuJMillerKMaX, et al. Direct 3D bioprinting of cardiac micro-tissues mimicking native myocardium. Biomaterials2020; 256: 120204.
62.
YangWCaiSYuanZ, et al. Mask-free generation of multicellular 3D heterospheroids array for high-throughput combinatorial anti-cancer drug screening. Mater Des2019; 183: 108182.
63.
MahendiranBMuthusamySSampathS, et al. Recent trends in natural polysaccharide based bioinks for multiscale 3D printing in tissue regeneration: a review. Int J Biol Macromol2021; 183: 564–588.
64.
FetahKTebonPGoudieMJ, et al. The emergence of 3D bioprinting in organ-on-chip systems. Prog Biomed Eng2019; 1(1): 012001.
65.
GuZFuJLinH, et al. Development of 3D bioprinting: from printing methods to biomedical applications. Asian J Pharm Sci2020; 15: 529–557.
66.
MahdaviSSAbdekhodaieMJKumarH, et al. Stereolithography 3D bioprinting method for fabrication of human corneal stroma equivalent. Ann Biomed Eng2020; 48: 1955–1970.
67.
SolariDPapalloIUggaL, et al. Novel concepts and strategies in skull base reconstruction after endoscopic endonasal surgery. ACTA IMEKO2020; 9(4): 67–73.
68.
FucilePOnofrioIPapalloI, et al. Strategies for the design of additively manufactured nanocomposite scaffolds for hard tissue regeneration. ACTA IMEKO2020; 9(4): 53–59.
69.
RoccoNPapalloINavaMB, et al. Additive manufacturing and technical strategies for improving outcomes in breast reconstructive surgery. ACTA IMEKO2020; 9(4): 74–79.
70.
YoussefAHrynevichAFladelandL, et al. The impact of melt electrowritten scaffold design on porosity determined by X-ray microtomography. Tissue Eng Part C Methods2019; 25(6): 367–379.
71.
ChenYZhangJLiuX, et al. Noninvasive in vivo 3D bioprinting. Sci Adv2020; 6(23): eaba7406.
72.
de CarloTERomanoAWaheedNK, et al. A review of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). Int J Retina Vitreous2015; 1: 5.
73.
MoraesLGRochaRSMenegazzoLM, et al. Infrared spectroscopy: a tool for determination of the degree of conversion in dental composites. J Appl Oral Sci2008; 16: 145–149.
74.
KorinEFrouminNCohenS. Surface analysis of nanocomplexes by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). ACS Biomater Sci Eng2017; 3: 882–889.
75.
AhmedRLawAWLCheungTW, et al. Raman spectroscopy of bone composition during healing of subcritical calvarial defects. Biomed Opt Express2018; 9: 1704–1716.
76.
YonMSarou-KanianVSchelerU, et al. Solid-state 31P and 1H chemical MR micro-imaging of hard tissues and biomaterials with magic angle spinning at very high magnetic field. Sci Rep2017; 7(1): 8224.
77.
NautaSPPoezeMHeerenRMA, et al. Clinical use of mass spectrometry (imaging) for hard tissue analysis in abnormal fracture healing. Clin Chem Lab Med2020; 58: 897–913.
78.
Pérez-SánchezLOrtiz de la OMAGonzález-AlvaP, et al. In vivo study on bone response to 3D-printed constructs designed from microtomographic images. J Mater Eng Perform2021; 30(7): 5005–5012.
79.
WangLXuMELuoL, et al. Iterative feedback bio-printing-derived cell-laden hydrogel scaffolds with optimal geometrical fidelity and cellular controllability. Sci Rep2018; 8: 2802.
80.
MoFQiuDZhangL, et al. Recent development of aryl diazonium chemistry for the derivatization of aromatic compounds. Chem Rev2021; 121: 5741–5829.
81.
WangLXuMZhangL, et al. Automated quantitative assessment of three-dimensional bioprinted hydrogel scaffolds using optical coherence tomography. Biomed Opt Express2016; 7: 894–910.
82.
TanACSTanGSDennistonAK, et al. An overview of the clinical applications of optical coherence tomography angiography. Eye2018; 32: 262–286.
83.
JohnPVasaNJSujathaN, et al. Glucose sensing in human gingival tissue using supercontinuum source based differential absorption optical coherence tomography. In: 2018 IEEE sensors, New Delhi, India, 28–31 October 2018, pp.1–4. New York, NY: IEEE.
