Dipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity

Wang, Maxime M.; Flores, Roberto L.; Witek, Lukasz; Torroni, Andrea; Ibrahim, Amel; Wang, Zhong; Liss, Hannah A.; Cronstein, Bruce N.; Lopez, Christopher D.; Maliha, Samantha G.; Coelho, Paulo G.

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-54726-6

Cited by 44 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(101 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They revealed a volumetrically and functionally significant osteogenic regeneration of calvarial defects, with a neoformed vascularized bone comparable to native tissue. Moreover, the Authors confirmed, using 3D morphometric facial surface analysis, that the 3D-printed β-TCP and dipyridamole scaffold does not lead to premature closure of sutures and allows to maintain the normal craniofacial growth [121].…”

Section: Tissue Engineering Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 84%

Personalized Bone Reconstruction and Regeneration in the Treatment of Craniosynostosis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Craniosynostosis (CS) is the second most prevalent craniofacial congenital malformation due to the premature fusion of skull sutures. CS care requires surgical treatment of variable complexity, aimed at resolving functional and cosmetic defects resulting from the skull growth constrain. Despite significant innovation in the management of CS, morbidity and mortality still exist. Residual cranial defects represent a potential complication and needdedicated management to drive a targeted bone regeneration while modulating suture ossification. To this aim, existing techniques are rapidly evolving and include the implementation of novel biomaterials, 3D printing and additive manufacturing techniques, and advanced therapies based on tissue engineering. This review aims at providing an exhaustive and up-to-date overview of the strategies in use to correct these congenital defects, focusing on the technological advances in the fields of biomaterials and tissue engineering implemented in pediatric surgical skull reconstruction, i.e., biodegradable bone fixation systems, biomimetic scaffolds, drug delivery systems, and cell-based approaches.

show abstract

Section: Tissue Engineering Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 84%

Personalized Bone Reconstruction and Regeneration in the Treatment of Craniosynostosis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This explains the increased popularity of vascularized autologous bone grafting as the standard option ( 62 ). Multiple reconstructive options have emerged for mandibular reconstruction, including iliac crest, rib and fibula ( 63 ). The fibula was first utilized by Hidalgo et al ( 64 ) for mandibular reconstruction in 1989.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of additive manufacturing in customized titanium mandibular implants for patients with oral tumors

Xia

Feng

et al. 2020

Oncol Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3D Printing of Bone Biomimetic Scaffolds Ceramics have been commonly used for the 3D printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. This is due to their inorganic composition, high stiffness, hydrophilicity, bioactivity, biocompatibility, and osteoconductivity, which make it an ideal material to generate a biomimetic scaffold [36].…”

Section: Print-and-implant Strategies That Harness Bone's Inherent Reparative Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Printing New Bones: From Print-and-Implant Devices to Bioprinted Bone Organ Precursors

Freeman

Burdis²,

Kelly³

2021

Trends in Molecular Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regenerating large bone defects remains a significant clinical challenge, motivating increased interest in additive manufacturing and 3D bioprinting to engineer superior bone graft substitutes. 3D bioprinting enables different biomaterials, cell types, and growth factors to be combined to develop patientspecific implants capable of directing functional bone regeneration. Current approaches to bioprinting such implants fall into one of two categories, each with their own advantages and limitations. First are those that can be 3D bioprinted and then directly implanted into the body and second those that require further in vitro culture after bioprinting to engineer more mature tissues prior to implantation. This review covers the key concepts, challenges, and applications of both strategies to regenerate damaged and diseased bone. Current Bioprinting Strategies for Bone RegenerationSince the first US patent was awarded for 3D bioprinting (see Glossary) in 2006 (https://www.google.com/patents/US7051654), there have been significant advances in the field, particularly its application towards bone regeneration. This can be seen in the large number of publications (>600 papers) and reviews [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] devoted to the topic in the past 4 years alone. Advances in additive manufacturing and 3D bioprinting have had a significant impact on the fields of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, with microextrusion, inkjet, laser-assisted bioprinting, and more recently melt-electrowriting (MEW) techniques all being used to generate implants for bone repair. In the literature there are a variety of definitions for the terms 'bioprinting' and 'bioinks', with some specifying the presence of cells as a mandatory component of the printing formulation in bioprinting [13]. For the purpose of this review, we define bioprinting as the use of 3D printing technologies to deposit cells and/or other biological factors, specifically genes, growth factors, and/or extracellular matrix (ECM) components, in a spatially controlled pattern to fabricate or regenerate living tissues and organs. Common features of a bone bioprinting strategy include a bioink (typically a hydrogel), laden with cells, genes, and/or growth factors, and a mechanical backbone of a thermopolymer or ceramic to accommodate the challenging loads experienced by the implant in situ. Extensive reviews have been written on the various technologies [1,2,4,5,[9][10][11][12][14][15][16][17] and bioinks [1,3,[6][7][8]10,18,19] under development for bone regeneration. Broadly speaking, putative therapeutics that can be derived from such technologies fall into one of two categories; first, those that can be 3D bioprinted and then directly implanted into the body (herein termed 'print-and-implant' devices), and second, those that require further in vitro culture after bioprinting (e.g., in a bioreactor) to mature the engineered tissue prior to implantation. Both approaches have their own inherent advantages and limitations. Constructs that can be biopri...

show abstract

Dipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity

Cited by 44 publications

References 63 publications

Personalized Bone Reconstruction and Regeneration in the Treatment of Craniosynostosis

Personalized Bone Reconstruction and Regeneration in the Treatment of Craniosynostosis

Application of additive manufacturing in customized titanium mandibular implants for patients with oral tumors

Printing New Bones: From Print-and-Implant Devices to Bioprinted Bone Organ Precursors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About