A bioprinting printing approach to regenerate cartilage for microtia treatment

Abstract

The need to search for biomaterials that can promote tissue regeneration and easy to replicate and manufacture is a major driving force for research and development in the area of reconstructive surgery and regenerative medicine. It is of great importance to otolaryngologists to find alternate solutions that require harvesting large amounts of autologous cartilage in patients needing cartilage grafts. Due to its very limited self-regeneration capacity, cartilage repair and reconstruction is extremely challenging. Microtia is a congenital condition of abnormal development of the outer and/ or the middle ear and can range from mild to complete absence of the ear. Current treatment methods such as autologous, alloplastic and prosthetic reconstruction have limitations such as donor site morbidity, long-term complications and implant failure. 3D printing is an exciting solution to address the challenges of microtia and create customised implants. The ability to deposit cells and biomaterials in a controlled and precise manner, allows the fabrication of implants with complex internal architecture and functional properties not achievable through traditional manufacturing methods. Despite the ability to mimic native properties and structure of tissue, 3D printed constructs using pristine inks lack the structural integrity and adequate mechanical properties for use in vivo or handling. These requirements highlight the importance of ink development and selection, which is a continuing challenge in the bioprinting process. This review will address the current treatment options for patients with microtia and the potential of 3D bioprinting in area of auricular cartilage regeneration. In particular, the use of hybrid printing to better mimic the practical and functional requirements of an ear scaffold will be discussed.

3D Printed Sugar‐Sensing Hydrogels

“…Gelatin methacrylamide (GelMA), in particular, has emerged as a candidate to create biocompatible hydrogel scaffolds [ 13–15 ] and serves as a key component in tissue regeneration research, [ 13,16 ] wound healing, [ 14,17 ] corneal bioengineering applications, [ 18 ] and cartilage regeneration. [ 19 ] It is desired for bioprinting applications since the viscosity and cross‐linking ability of GelMA can be tailored to produce a range of hydrogels with various mechanical strengths. [ 14 ] In recent years, a variety of 3D printing technologies have been employed for the fabrication of hydrogel scaffolds with precise geometries, allowing for complete control over pore interconnectivities and internal architectures.…”

“…It exhibited good linearity in response, and a comparable behavior with both BA derivatives. Due to the proven biocompatibility, ease of 3D fabrication and breath of research in tissue engineering and wound healing applications, [ 13–20,29 ] GelMA was chosen as the monomer for 3D scaffold fabrication.…”

3D Printed Sugar‐Sensing Hydrogels

“…It exhibited good linearity in response, and a comparable behavior with both BA derivatives. Due to the proven biocompatibility, ease of 3D fabrication and breath of research in tissue engineering and wound healing applications, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]31] GelMA was chosen as the monomer for 3D scaffold fabrication.…”

“…Gelatin methacrylamide (GelMA), in particular, has emerged as a candidate to create biocompatible hydrogel scaffolds [13][14][15] and serves as a key component in tissue regeneration research, [13,16] wound healing, [14,17] corneal bioengineering applications, [18] and cartilage regeneration. [19] It is desired for bioprinting applications since the viscosity and cross-linking ability of GelMA can be tailored to produce a range of hydrogels with various mechanical strengths. [14] In recent years, a variety of 3D printing technologies have been employed for the fabrication of hydrogel scaffolds with precise geometries, allowing for complete control over pore interconnectivities and internal architectures.…”

Fabrication and characterization ofchitosan‐gelatin/single‐walledcarbon nanotubes electrospun composite scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering applications

“…An ideal scaffold must have appropriate morphological, structural, chemical, and mechanical properties designed according to the target tissue to simulate the properties of the natural ECM. 2 Among different scaffold fabricating methods including melt molding, gas foaming, freeze-drying, self-assembly and electrospinning, electrospun nanofibers can well mimic the nano-structure of the cartilage ECM composed of ground substances and an interlocking mesh of fibrous proteins. The structural properties of electrospun scaffolds are influenced by the fabrication parameters of the electrospinning method, which affect the microstructural properties of electrospun nanofiber scaffolds, such as fiber diameter and porosity between them.…”