The reconstruction of critical-sized bone defects remains a challenging clinical problem. At present, the implantation of autogenous and allogeneic grafts is the main clinical treatment strategy but faces some drawbacks, such as inadequate source, donor site-related complications, and immune rejection, driving researchers to develop artificial bone substitutes based on distinct materials and fabrication technologies. Among the bone substitutes, bioceramic-based substitutes exhibit a remarkable biocompatibility, which can also be designed to degrade concomitantly with the formation of new bone. In addition, three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies are frequently used for fabricating personalized 3D bioceramic scaffolds, which can achieve accurate imitation of native bone structures. Especially, bioprinting can produce organoids by integrating cells into scaffolds, which achieves the simultaneous imitation of organ structure and biological function. This review summarizes recent progresses of bioceramic-based materials, including hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, bioactive glass, calcium silicate, alumina, and zirconia. In addition, the application of 3D printing technologies and bioprinting is also elaborated in this text, offering important reference for future research of 3D-printed bioceramics.
Impact Statement
At present, there are abundant studies on 3D-printed bioceramics. However, bioceramic scaffolds are rarely applied to clinical practice. This review summarizes the bioceramic materials (hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, bioactive glass, calcium silicate, alumina, and zirconia) and 3D printing technologies (digital light processing, stereolithography, fused deposition modeling, direct ink writing, selective laser sintering, and inkjet printing), especially elaborating the application of bioprinting technology in bone regeneration, with the aim of providing direction for future research and clinical translation of products.
WangJ, WuY, LiG, et al.Engineering large-scale self-mineralizing bone organoids with bone matrix-inspired hydroxyapatite hybrid bioinks. Adv Mater, 2024; 36(30):e2309875; doi: 10.1002/adma.202309875
2.
ZhiW, WangX, SunD, et al.Optimal regenerative repair of large segmental bone defect in a goat model with osteoinductive calcium phosphate bioceramic implants. Bioact Mater, 2022; 11:240–253; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.09.024
3.
XiaoL, ZhuM, YuK, et al.Effects of innervation on angiogenesis and osteogenesis in bone and dental tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2024; 30(4):477–489; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2023.0267
4.
ChenB, ChenQ, ZhangH, et al.3D-printed dual-bionic scaffolds to promote osteoconductivity and angiogenesis for large segment bone restoration. Adv Funct Materials, 2025; 35(17):2422691; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202422691
5.
LiF, ChenX, LiuP. A review on three-dimensional printed silicate-based bioactive glass/biodegradable medical synthetic polymer composite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2023; 29(3):244–259; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2022.0140
6.
BelluomoR, KhodaeiA, YavariSA. Additively manufactured Bi-functionalized bioceramics for reconstruction of bone tumor defects. Acta Biomater, 2023; 156:234–249; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.042
7.
FanL, ChenS, YangM, et al.Metallic materials for bone repair. Adv Healthc Mater, 2024; 13(3):e2302132; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202302132
8.
MaZ, LiuB, LiS, et al.A novel biomimetic trabecular bone metal plate for bone repair and osseointegration. Regen Biomater, 2023; 10:rbad003; doi: 10.1093/rb/rbad003
9.
LiS, JiaC, HanH, et al.Characterization and biocompatibility of a bilayer PEEK-based scaffold for guiding bone regeneration. BMC Oral Health, 2024; 24(1):1138; doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04909-z
10.
WeiX, ZhouW, TangZ, et al.Magnesium surface-activated 3D printed porous PEEK scaffolds for in vivo osseointegration by promoting angiogenesis and osteogenesis. Bioact Mater, 2023; 20:16–28; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.05.011
11.
de CarvalhoABG, RahimnejadM, OliveiraR, et al.Personalized bioceramic grafts for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration. Int J Oral Sci, 2024; 16(1):62; doi: 10.1038/s41368-024-00327-7
12.
ZhuH, WangJ, WangS, et al.Additively manufactured bioceramic scaffolds based on triply periodic minimal surfaces for bone regeneration. J Tissue Eng, 2024; 15:20417314241244997; doi: 10.1177/20417314241244997
13.
ZhangY, HeF, ZhangQ, et al.3D-printed flat-bone-mimetic bioceramic scaffolds for cranial restoration. Research, 2023; 6:e0255; doi: 10.34133/research.0255
14.
ShenM, LiY, LuF, et al.Bioceramic scaffolds with triply periodic minimal surface architectures guide early-stage bone regeneration. Bioact Mater, 2023; 25:374–386; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.02.012
15.
EntezariA, WuQ, MirkhalafM, et al.Unraveling the influence of channel size and shape in 3D printed ceramic scaffolds on osteogenesis. Acta Biomater, 2024; 180:115–127; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2024.04.020
16.
ZhangB, XingF, ChenL, et al.DLP fabrication of customized porous bioceramics with osteoinduction ability for remote isolation bone regeneration. Biomater Adv, 2023; 145:213261; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.213261
17.
AbdollahiF, SaghatchiM, ParyabA, et al.Angiogenesis in bone tissue engineering via ceramic scaffolds: A review of concepts and recent advancements. Biomater Adv, 2024; 159:213828; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.213828
18.
ZhangB, WangK, GuiX, et al.3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds reinforced by the in situ oriented growth of grains for supercritical bone defect reconstruction. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2025; 12(2):e2408459; doi: 10.1002/advs.202408459
19.
ZhengYQ, SunJL, LiX, et al.Functionally graded composite ceramics: Design, manufacturing, properties and applications. Prog Mater Sci, 2025; 154:101496; doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2025.101496
20.
BabashovVG, VarrikNM. Gel casting method for producing ceramic materials: A review. Glass Ceram, 2023; 80(1–2):9–16; doi: 10.1007/s10717-023-00547-z
21.
YinYK, XuJY, JiM, et al.A critical review on sintering and mechanical processing of 3Y-TZP ceramics. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(2):1549–1571; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.10.159
22.
ZhaoY, CaoG, WangZ, et al.The recent progress of bone regeneration materials containing EGCG. J Mater Chem B, 2024; 12(39):9835–9844; doi: 10.1039/d4tb00604f
23.
IvanovskiS, BreikO, CarluccioD, et al.3D printing for bone regeneration: Challenges and opportunities for achieving predictability. Periodontol 2000, 2023; 93(1):358–384; doi: 10.1111/prd.12525
24.
JoY, HwangDG, KimM, et al.Bioprinting-assisted tissue assembly to generate organ substitutes at scale. Trends Biotechnol, 2023; 41(1):93–105; doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.07.001
25.
SunYX, ZhaoZQ, QiaoQC, et al.Injectable periodontal ligament stem cell-metformin-calcium phosphate scaffold for bone regeneration and vascularization in rats. Dent Mater, 2023; 39(10):872–885; doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.07.008
26.
WangJW, XiaYH, HaoZW, et al.A triple-integrated 3D-printed composite scaffold of high-activity peptide-metal ion-bone cement facilitates Osteo-vascular regenerative repair of diabetic bone defects. Adv Funct Mater, 2025:2422950; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202422950
27.
VitaleM, LigorioC, McAvanB, et al.Hydroxyapatite-decorated Fmoc-hydrogel as a bone-mimicking substrate for osteoclast differentiation and culture. Acta Biomater, 2022; 138:144–154; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.11.011
28.
MadukaCV, MakelaAV, TundoA, et al.Regulating the proinflammatory response to composite biomaterials by targeting immunometabolism. Bioact Mater, 2024; 40:64–73; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.05.046
29.
ZhangB, GuiX, SongP, et al.Three-dimensional printing of large-scale, high-resolution Bioceramics with micronano inner porosity and customized surface characterization design for bone regeneration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2022; 14(7):8804–8815; doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c22868
30.
YangH, HuangSR, ZhuXW, et al.Scalable fabrication of freely shapable 3D hierarchical Cu-doped hydroxyapatite scaffolds via rapid gelation for enhanced bone repair. Mater Today Bio, 2024; 29:101370; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101370
XiongS, ZhangY, ZengJ, et al.DLP fabrication of HA scaffold with customized porous structures to regulate immune microenvironment and macrophage polarization for enhancing bone regeneration. Mater Today Bio, 2024; 24:100929; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100929
33.
RoohaniI, WangSN, XuCH, et al.Bioinspired nanoscale 3D printing of calcium phosphates using bone Prenucleation clusters. Advanced Materials, 2025; 37(13):2413626; doi: 10.1002/adma.202413626
34.
DalfinoS, SavadoriP, PiazzoniM, et al.Regeneration of critical-sized mandibular defects using 3D-printed composite scaffolds: A quantitative evaluation of new bone formation in in vivo studies. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(21):e2300128; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202300128
35.
TroncoMC, CasselJB, Dos SantosLA. α-TCP-based calcium phosphate cements: A critical review. Acta Biomater, 2022; 151:70–87; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.040
36.
QiD, SuJ, LiS, et al.3D printed magnesium-doped β-TCP gyroid scaffold with osteogenesis, angiogenesis, immunomodulation properties and bone regeneration capability in vivo. Biomater Adv, 2022; 136:212759; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.212759
37.
WuH, WeiX, LiuY, et al.Dynamic degradation patterns of porous polycaprolactone/β-tricalcium phosphate composites orchestrate macrophage responses and immunoregulatory bone regeneration. Bioact Mater, 2023; 21:595–611; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.07.032
38.
FengBS, ZhangM, QinC, et al.3D printing of conch-like scaffolds for guiding cell migration and directional bone growth. Bioact Mater, 2023; 22:127–140; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.09.014
39.
FengJ, LiuJ, WangY, et al.Beta-TCP scaffolds with rationally designed macro-micro hierarchical structure improved angio/osteo-genesis capability for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2023; 34(7):36; doi: 10.1007/s10856-023-06733-3
40.
SantoniBL, NiggliL, DolderS, et al.Influence of the sintering atmosphere on the physico-chemical properties and the osteoclastic resorption of β-tricalcium phosphate cylinders. Acta Biomater, 2023; 169:566–578; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.08.012
ZhouQ, SuX, WuJ, et al.Additive manufacturing of bioceramic implants for restoration bone engineering: Technologies, advances, and future perspectives. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2023; 9(3):1164–1189; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c01164
43.
JinM, SunN, WengW, et al.The effect of GelMA/alginate interpenetrating polymeric network hydrogel on the performance of porous zirconia matrix for bone regeneration applications. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 242(Pt 3):124820; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124820
44.
JiangC, DingM, ZhangJ, et al.3D printed porous zirconia biomaterials based on triply periodic minimal surfaces promote osseointegration in vitro by regulating osteoimmunomodulation and osteo/angiogenesis. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2024; 16(12):14548–14560; doi: 10.1021/acsami.3c18799
45.
ZiąbkaM, WojteczkoA, ZagrajczukB, et al.Biological evaluation of ZrO(2) composites modified with different ceramics additives. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol, 2024; 52(1):551–563; doi: 10.1080/21691401.2024.2422870
46.
RobinM, MoulounguiE, DaliGC, et al.Mineralized collagen plywood contributes to bone autograft performance. Nature, 2024; 636(8041):100–107; doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08208-z
47.
HassanMN, EltawilaAM, Mohamed-AhmedS, et al.Correlation between Ca release and osteoconduction by 3D-printed hydroxyapatite-based templates. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2024; 16(22):28056–28069; doi: 10.1021/acsami.4c01472
48.
GezekM, AltunbekM, GouveiaMET, et al.3D printed eggshell microparticle-laden thermoplastic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2024; 16(26):32957–32970; doi: 10.1021/acsami.4c02800
49.
ZhaoHY, NiuX, WeiST, et al.Graphene oxide and in-situ carbon reinforced hydroxyapatite scaffolds via ultraviolet-curing 3D printing technology with high osteoinductivity for bone regeneration. Biofabrication, 2025; 17(2):e025028; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/adbcdd
50.
ChenQ, ZouB, WangX, et al.SLA-3d printed building and characteristics of GelMA/HAP biomaterials with gradient porous structure. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2024; 155:106553; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106553
51.
ZhaoZH, ChenXY, ChenHM, et al.Cerium-containing mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles reinforced 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds toward enhanced mechanical, antioxidant, and osteogenic activities for bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2025; 14(9):e2404346; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202404346
52.
DeMitchell-RodriguezEM, ShenC, NayakVV, et al.Engineering 3D printed bioceramic scaffolds to reconstruct critical-sized calvaria defects in a skeletally immature pig model. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2023; 152(2):270e–280e; doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000010258
53.
ShuCQ, QinC, WuAJ, et al.3D printing of cobalt-incorporated chloroapatite bioceramic composite scaffolds with antioxidative activity for enhanced osteochondral regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2024; 13(13):e2303217; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202303217
54.
HeFP, RaoJ, ZhouJL, et al.Fabrication of 3D printed Ca3Mg3(PO4)4-based bioceramic scaffolds with tailorable high mechanical strength and osteostimulation effect. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2023; 229:113472; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113472
55.
LeeCY, NedunchezianS, LinSY, et al.Bilayer osteochondral graft in rabbit xenogeneic transplantation model comprising sintered 3D-printed bioceramic and human adipose-derived stem cells laden biohydrogel. J Biol Eng, 2023; 17(1):74–24; doi: 10.1186/s13036-023-00389-x
56.
ShuCQ, QinC, ChenL, et al.Metal-organic framework functionalized bioceramic scaffolds with antioxidative activity for enhanced osteochondral regeneration. Adv Sci, 2023; 10(13):2206875; doi: 10.1002/advs.202206875
57.
LiuHH, WuQH, LiuSB, et al.The role of integrin αv83 in biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics mediated M2 Macrophage polarization and the resultant osteoinduction. Biomaterials, 2024; 304:122406; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122406
58.
HumbertP, KampleitnerC, De LimaJ, et al.Phase composition of calcium phosphate materials affects bone formation by modulating osteoclastogenesis. Acta Biomater, 2024; 176:417–431; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2024.01.022
59.
PejchalováL, PejchalJ, RolecekJ, et al.In vivo assessment on freeze-cast calcium phosphate-based scaffolds with a selective cell/tissue ingrowth. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2024; 16(43):58326–58336; doi: 10.1021/acsami.4c12715
60.
AnandA, KaňkováH, HájovskáZ, et al.Bio-response of copper-magnesium co-substituted mesoporous bioactive glass for bone tissue regeneration. J Mater Chem B, 2024; 12(7):1875–1891; doi: 10.1039/d3tb01568h
61.
García-LamasL, LozanoD, Jiménez-DíazV, et al.Enriched mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds as bone substitutes in critical diaphyseal bone defects in rabbits. Acta Biomater, 2024; 180:104–114; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2024.04.005
62.
Sánchez-SalcedoS, GarcíaA, González-JiménezA, et al.Antibacterial effect of 3D printed mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds doped with metallic silver nanoparticles. Acta Biomater, 2023; 155:654–666; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.10.045
63.
ZhuY, ZhangX, ChangG, et al.Bioactive glass in tissue regeneration: Unveiling recent advances in regenerative strategies and applications. Adv Mater, 2025; 37(2):e2312964; doi: 10.1002/adma.202312964
64.
SimilaHO, BoccacciniAR. Sol-gel bioactive glass containing biomaterials for restorative dentistry: A review. Dent Mater, 2022; 38(5):725–747; doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.02.011
65.
LiFL, YeJL, LiuP, et al.An overview on bioactive glasses for bone regeneration and repair: Preparation, reinforcement, and applications. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2025; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2024.0272
66.
ZhangM, ZhaiX, MaT, et al.Sequential therapy for bone regeneration by cerium oxide-reinforced 3D-printed bioactive glass scaffolds. ACS Nano, 2023; 17(5):4433–4444; doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c09855
67.
CuiY, HongS, JiangW, et al.Engineering mesoporous bioactive glasses for emerging stimuli-responsive drug delivery and theranostic applications. Bioact Mater, 2024; 34:436–462; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.01.001
68.
ArcosD, PortolésMT. Mesoporous bioactive nanoparticles for bone tissue applications. Int J Mol Sci, 2023; 24(4):3249; doi: 10.3390/ijms24043249
69.
RahimnejadM, CharbonneauC, HeZ, et al.Injectable cell-laden hybrid bioactive scaffold containing bioactive glass microspheres. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2023; 111(7):1031–1043; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.37487
70.
ZampariniF, PratiC, TaddeiP, et al.Chemical-physical properties and bioactivity of new premixed calcium silicate-bioceramic root canal sealers. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(22):13914; doi: 10.3390/ijms232213914
71.
YuanY, ZhangZ, MoF, et al.A biomaterial-based therapy for lower limb ischemia using Sr/Si bioactive hydrogel that inhibits skeletal muscle necrosis and enhances angiogenesis. Bioact Mater, 2023; 26:264–278; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.02.027
72.
XiaL, WuT, ChenL, et al.Silicon-based biomaterials modulate the adaptive immune response of T lymphocytes to promote osteogenesis/angiogenesis via epigenetic regulation. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(32):e2302054; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202302054
73.
YounessRA, Tag El-DeenDM, TahaMA. A review on calcium silicate ceramics: Properties, limitations, and solutions for their use in biomedical applications. Silicon, 2023; 15(6):2493–2505; doi: 10.1007/s12633-022-02207-3
74.
YangSY, ZhouYN, YuXG, et al.A xonotlite nanofiber bioactive 3D-printed hydrogel scaffold based on osteo-/angiogenesis and osteoimmune microenvironment remodeling accelerates vascularized bone regeneration. J Nanobiotechnol, 2024; 22(1):59; doi: 10.1186/s12951-024-02323-9
75.
WeiY, WangZ, LeiL, et al.Appreciable biosafety, biocompatibility and osteogenic capability of 3D printed nonstoichiometric wollastonite scaffolds favorable for clinical translation. J Orthop Translat, 2024; 45:88–99; doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.02.004
76.
QiL, FangX, YanJE, et al.Magnesium-containing bioceramics stimulate exosomal miR-196a-5p secretion to promote senescent osteogenesis through targeting Hoxa7/MAPK signaling axis. Bioact Mater, 2024; 33:14–29; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.10.024
77.
XuanYW, GuoYB, LiL, et al.3D-printed bredigite scaffolds with ordered arrangement structures promote bone regeneration by inducing macrophage polarization in onlay grafts. J Nanobiotechnology, 2024; 22(1):102–111; doi: 10.1186/s12951-024-02362-2
78.
YunJH, LeeHY, YeouSH, et al.Electrostatic attachment of exosome onto a 3D-fabricated calcium silicate/polycaprolactone for enhanced bone regeneration. Mater Today Bio, 2024; 29:101283; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101283
79.
HuXQ, LiSS, HeZC, et al.Flexible biopolymer-assisted 3D printed bioceramics scaffold with high shape adaptability. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 265(Pt 1):130919; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.130919
80.
YuanX, ZhuW, YangZ, et al.Recent advances in 3D printing of smart scaffolds for bone tissue engineering and regeneration. Adv Mater, 2024; 36(34):e2403641; doi: 10.1002/adma.202403641
81.
van der HeideD, CidonioG, StoddartMJ, et al.3D printing of inorganic-biopolymer composites for bone regeneration. Biofabrication, 2022; 14(4):e042003; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ac8cb2
82.
HosseinabadiHG, NietoD, YousefinejadA, et al.Ink material selection and optical design considerations in DLP 3D printing. Appl Mater Today, 2023; 30:101721; doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2022.101721
83.
WangJ, TangY, CaoQ, et al.Fabrication and biological evaluation of 3D-printed calcium phosphate ceramic scaffolds with distinct macroporous geometries through digital light processing technology. Regen Biomater, 2022; 9:rbac005; doi: 10.1093/rb/rbac005
84.
WuY, LiuP, FengC, et al.3D printing calcium phosphate ceramics with high osteoinductivity through pore architecture optimization. Acta Biomater, 2024; 185:111–125; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2024.07.008
85.
LiYF, LiJF, JiangS, et al.The design of strut/TPMS-based pore geometries in bioceramic scaffolds guiding osteogenesis and angiogenesis in bone regeneration. Mater Today Bio, 2023; 20:100667; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100667
86.
LuJ, ZhangX, LiS, et al.Quasi-static compressive and cyclic dynamic impact performances of vat photopolymerization 3D printed Al2O3 triply periodic minimal surface scaffolds and Al2O3/Al hybrid structures: Effects of cell size. J Alloys Compd, 2023; 969:172445; doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.172445
87.
ZhangB, WangW, GuiX, et al.3D printing of customized key biomaterials genomics for bone regeneration. Appl Mater Today, 2022; 26:101346; doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2021.101346
88.
ChekkaramkodiD, JacobL, ShebeebCM, et al.Review of vat photopolymerization 3D printing of photonic devices. Addit Manuf, 2024; 86:104189; doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2024.104189
89.
CorradoF, Di MaioL, PalmeroP, et al.Vat photo-polymerization 3D printing of gradient scaffolds for osteochondral tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater, 2025; 200:67–86; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2025.05.042
90.
HayashiK, KishidaR, TsuchiyaA, et al.Transformable carbonate apatite chains as a novel type of bone graft. Adv Healthc Mater, 2024; 13(12):e2303245; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202303245
91.
XingH, LuoH, LaiL, et al.SLA-3D printing and bioactivity enhancement of zirconia anchor screws for temporomandibular joint disc reduction surgery. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2025; 163:106897; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2025.106897
92.
SabahiN, RoohaniI, WangCH, et al.Material extrusion 3D printing of bioactive smart scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Addit Manuf, 2025; 98:104636; doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2024.104636
93.
HuangS, WeiH, LiD. Additive manufacturing technologies in the oral implant clinic: A review of current applications and progress. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2023; 11:1100155; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1100155
94.
ThurzoA, GálfiováP, NovákováZV, et al.Fabrication and in vitro characterization of novel hydroxyapatite scaffolds 3D printed using polyvinyl alcohol as a thermoplastic binder. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(23):14870; doi: 10.3390/ijms232314870
95.
BernardoMP, da SilvaBCR, HamoudaAE, et al.PLA/Hydroxyapatite scaffolds exhibit in vitro immunological inertness and promote robust osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells without osteogenic stimuli. Sci Rep, 2022; 12(1):2333; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-05207-w
96.
ChengYJ, WuTH, TsengYS, et al.Development of hybrid 3D printing approach for fabrication of high-strength hydroxyapatite bioscaffold using FDM and DLP techniques. Biofabrication, 2024; 16(2):e025003; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ad1b20
97.
KarimiA, RahmatabadiD, BaghaniM. Various FDM mechanisms used in the fabrication of continuous-fiber reinforced composites: A review. Polymers (Basel), 2024; 16(6):831; doi: 10.3390/polym16060831
98.
dos SantosVI, ChevalierJ, FredelMC, et al.Ceramics and ceramic composites for biomedical engineering applications via Direct Ink Writing: Overall scenario, advances in the improvement of mechanical and biological properties and innovations. Mater Sci Eng R-Rep, 2024; 161:100841; doi: 10.1016/j.mser.2024.100841
99.
YangZ, XueJ, LiT, et al.3D printing of sponge spicules-inspired flexible bioceramic-based scaffolds. Biofabrication, 2022; 14(3):e035009; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ac66ff
100.
NayakVV, SanjairajV, BeheraRK, et al.Direct inkjet writing of polylactic acid/β-tricalcium phosphate composites for bone tissue regeneration: A proof-of-concept study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2024; 112(4):e35402; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35402
101.
PangSM, WuDW, GurloA, et al.Additive manufacturing and performance of bioceramic scaffolds with different hollow strut geometries. Biofabrication, 2023; 15(2):e025011; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/acb387
102.
RajaN, ParkH, GalCW, et al.Support-less ceramic 3D printing of bioceramic structures using a hydrogel bath. Biofabrication, 2023; 15(3):e035006; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/acc903
103.
UtamiSS, RajaN, KimJ, et al.Support-less 3D bioceramic/extracellular matrix printing in sanitizer-based hydrogel for bone tissue engineering. Biofabrication, 2025; 17(2):e025017; doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/adb4a3
104.
ZhangF, LiZ, XuM, et al.A review of 3D printed porous ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc, 2022; 42(8):3351–3373; doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2022.02.039
105.
AzamMU, BelyamaniI, SchifferA, et al.Progress in selective laser sintering of multifunctional polymer composites for strain- and self-sensing applications. J Mater Res Technol, 2024; 30:9625–9646; doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.06.024
106.
XuY, DingW, ChenM, et al.Synergistic fabrication of micro-nano bioactive ceramic-optimized polymer scaffolds for bone tissue engineering by in situ hydrothermal deposition and selective laser sintering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 2022; 33(16):2104–2123; doi: 10.1080/09205063.2022.2096526
107.
FengP, QiuX, YangL, et al.Polydopamine constructed interfacial molecular bridge in nano-hydroxylapatite/polycaprolactone composite scaffold. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2022; 217:112668; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2022.112668
108.
LiT, PengZ, LvQ, et al.SLS 3D printing to fabricate Poly(vinyl alcohol)/hydroxyapatite bioactive composite porous scaffolds and their bone defect repair property. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2023; 9(12):6734–6744; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01014
109.
MostofizadehM, KainzM, AlihosseiniF, et al.Phosphoramide hydrogels as biodegradable matrices for inkjet printing and their nano-hydroxyapatite composites. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2024; 16(39):52902–52910; doi: 10.1021/acsami.4c10532
110.
KoširT, SlavičJ. Modeling of single-process 3D-printed piezoelectric sensors with resistive electrodes: The low-pass filtering effect. Polymers (Basel), 2022; 15(1):158; doi: 10.3390/polym15010158
111.
WeiY, KhalafAT, YeP, et al.Therapeutic benefits of pomegranate flower extract: A novel effect that reduces oxidative stress and significantly improves diastolic relaxation in hyperglycemic in vitro in rats. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2022; 2022:4158762; doi: 10.1155/2022/4158762
112.
HeCF, HeJK, WuCT, et al.3D printing for tissue/organ regeneration in China. Bio-Des Manuf, 2025; 8(2):169–242; doi: 10.1631/bdm.2400309
113.
ChaeS, ChoDW. Biomaterial-based 3D bioprinting strategy for orthopedic tissue engineering. Acta Biomater, 2023; 156:4–20; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.004
114.
KimW, KwonDR, LeeH, et al.3D bioprinted multi-layered cell constructs with gradient core-shell interface for tendon-to-bone tissue regeneration. Bioact Mater, 2025; 43:471–490; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.10.002
115.
DuL, QinC, ZhangH, et al.Multicellular bioprinting of biomimetic inks for tendon-to-bone regeneration. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2023; 10(21):e2301309; doi: 10.1002/advs.202301309
116.
MachourM, MeretzkiR, HaizlerYM, et al.A stiff bioink for hybrid bioprinting of vascularized bone tissue with enhanced mechanical properties. Biomaterials, 2025; 322:123406; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2025.123406
117.
SousaAC, AlvitesR, LopesB, et al.Hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: Integration of composites and bioactive hydrogels loaded with hDPSCs. Biomater Adv, 2025; 166:214042; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.214042
118.
QinC, ZhangH, ChenL, et al.Cell-laden scaffolds for vascular-innervated bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(13):e2201923; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202201923
119.
KooY, LeeH, LimCS, et al.Highly porous multiple-cell-laden collagen/hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 2022; 222(Pt A):1264–1276; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.09.249
120.
WangX, YeM, ShenJ, et al.Core-shell-typed selective-area ion doping wollastonite bioceramic fibers enhancing bone regeneration and repair in situ. Appl Mater Today, 2023; 32:101849; doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2023.101849
121.
KotlarzM, MeloP, FerreiraAM, et al.Cell seeding via bioprinted hydrogels supports cell migration into porous apatite-wollastonite bioceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomater Adv, 2023; 153:213532; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213532
122.
YouST, XiangY, HwangHH, et al.High cell density and high-resolution 3D bioprinting for fabricating vascularized tissues. Sci Adv, 2023; 9(8):e7923–e13; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ade7923
123.
LiuYC, WuH, BaoSS, et al.Clinical application of 3D-printed biodegradable lumbar interbody cage (polycaprolactone/β-tricalcium phosphate) for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2023; 111(7):1398–1406; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35244
124.
BabaeiM, Ebrahim-NajafabadiN, MirzadehM, et al.A comprehensive bench-to-bed look into the application of gamma-sterilized 3D-printed polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite implants for craniomaxillofacial defects, an in vitro, in vivo, and clinical study. Biomater Adv, 2024; 161:213900; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.213900
125.
WangYL, FuG, ZhangJ, et al.Bioceramics for guided bone regeneration: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2025; 27(1):e13437; doi: 10.1111/cid.13437
126.
DongLR, ZhangJ, LiYZ, et al.Borrowed dislocations for ductility in ceramics. Science, 2024; 385(6707):422–427; doi: 10.1126/science.adp0559
127.
LuT, XuZ, HeY, et al.3D-printed biomimetic ceramic scaffolds with photothermal/chemodynamic effects and ionic microenvironment for preventing tumor recurrence and promoting vascularized bone reconstruction. Adv Funct Materials, 2025; 35(25):2418438; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202418438
128.
LiuYY, CaoQL, YongSY, et al.Optimal structural characteristics of osteoinductivity in bioceramics derived from a novel high-throughput screening plus machine learning approach. Biomaterials, 2025; 321:123348; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2025.123348
