Inorganic Polymers: Morphogenic Inorganic Biopolymers for Rapid Prototyping Chain

Müller, Wernér E.G.; Schröder, Heinz C.; Shen, Zhijian; Feng, Qingling; Wang, Xiaohong

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41004-8_9

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 104 publications

(116 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biogenic silica is another biopolymer which is highly osteoproductive in unfavorable environmental conditions and ensures effective nutrient diffusion in hard craniofacial tissues with moderate vascularity. It is suitable for cell and proteins adhesion [84,85]. In general, the superiority of biopolymers over other materials is their prime printability and their ability to efficiently promote osteogenesis in the scaffold complex.…”

Section: Scaffold Materials and Combinationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of 3D printing on craniofacial bone repair: A systematic review

Maroulakos

Kamperos

Tayebi

et al. 2019

Journal of Dentistry

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting, a method derived from additive manufacturing technology, is a recent and ongoing trend for the construction of 3D volumetric structures. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize evidence from existing human and animal studies assessing the application of 3D printing on bone repair and regeneration in the craniofacial region. Data & sources A rigorous search of all relevant clinical trials and case series was performed, based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search was conducted in all available electronic databases and sources, supplemented by a manual search, in December 2017. Study selection 43 articles (6 human and 37 animal studies) fulfilled the criteria. The human studies included totally 81 patients with craniofacial bone defects. Titanium or hydroxylapatite scaffolds were most commonly implanted. The follow-up period ranged between 6 and 24 months. Bone repair was reported successful in nearly every case, with minimal complications. Also, animal intervention studies used biomaterials and cells in various combination, offering insights into the techniques, through histological, biochemical, histomorphometric and microcomputed tomographic findings. The results in both humans and animals, though promising, are yet to be verified for clinical impact. Conclusions Future research should be focused on well-designed clinical trials to confirm the short-and long-term efficacy of 3D printing strategies for craniofacial bone repair. Clinical significance Emerging 3D printing technology opens a new era for tissue engineering. Humans and animals on application of 3D printing for craniofacial bone repair showed promising results which will lead clinicians to investigate more thoroughly alternative therapeutic methods for craniofacial bone defects.

show abstract

Section: Scaffold Materials and Combinationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of 3D printing on craniofacial bone repair: A systematic review

Maroulakos

Kamperos

Tayebi

et al. 2019

Journal of Dentistry

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biogenic silica (BSi) shares very similar properties and invokes nearly identical biochemical action to bio‐polyP. Both materials are morphogenetically active and are incredibly resistant to non‐favorable environmental conditions . The complex architecture of a BSi network and its strong opto‐mechanical properties allow it to be exceptionally potent in nanomedicine and bone repair .…”

Section: Materials Used For 3d Bioprintingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three‐Dimensional Bioprinting Materials with Potential Application in Preprosthetic Surgery

Fahmy

Jazayeri

Razavi

et al. 2016

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current methods in handling maxillofacial defects are not robust and are highly dependent on the surgeon's skills and the inherent potential in the patients’ bodies for regenerating lost tissues. Employing custom‐designed 3D printed scaffolds that securely and effectively reconstruct the defects by using tissue engineering and regenerative medicine techniques can revolutionize preprosthetic surgeries. Various polymers, ceramics, natural and synthetic bioplastics, proteins, biomolecules, living cells, and growth factors as well as their hybrid structures can be used in 3D printing of scaffolds, which are still under development by scientists. These scaffolds not only are beneficial due to their patient‐specific design, but also may be able to prevent micromobility, make tension free soft tissue closure, and improve vascularity. In this manuscript, a review of materials employed in 3D bioprinting including bioceramics, biopolymers, composites, and metals is conducted. A discussion of the relevance of 3D bioprinting using these materials for craniofacial interventions is included as well as their potential to create analogs to craniofacial tissues, their benefits, limitations, and their application.

show abstract

“…In many tissue engineering approaches, natural materials such as bioceramics, bioglasses, and biopolymers have gained interest because of their chemical properties, processability, and availability. 13 Biological materials can be divided in several classes, namely materials retrieved from inorganic materials or plants, from animal species (xenogeneic), or from allogeneic and autologous sources. Generally, when materials for scaffolds are retrieved from inorganic substances or a plant, a certain component is isolated and purified, after which, in most cases, the macrostructure will be lost.…”

Section: Scaffold Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods of Monitoring Cell Fate and Tissue Growth in Three-Dimensional Scaffold-Based Strategies forIn VitroTissue Engineering

Leferink

Blitterswijk

Moroni

2016

Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the field of tissue engineering, there is a need for methods that allow assessing the performance of tissue-engineered constructs noninvasively in vitro and in vivo. To date, histological analysis is the golden standard to retrieve information on tissue growth, cellular distribution, and cell fate on tissue-engineered constructs after in vitro cell culture or on explanted specimens after in vivo applications. Yet, many advances have been made to optimize imaging techniques for monitoring tissue-engineered constructs with a sub-mm or μm resolution. Many imaging modalities have first been developed for clinical applications, in which a high penetration depth has been often more important than lateral resolution. In this study, we have reviewed the current state of the art in several imaging approaches that have shown to be promising in monitoring cell fate and tissue growth upon in vitro culture. Depending on the aimed tissue type and scaffold properties, some imaging methods are more applicable than others. Optical methods are mostly suited for transparent materials such as hydrogels, whereas magnetic resonance-based methods are mostly applied to obtain contrast between hard and soft tissues regardless of their transparency. Overall, this review shows that the field of imaging in scaffold-based tissue engineering is developing at a fast pace and has the potential to overcome the limitations of destructive endpoint analysis.

show abstract

Inorganic Polymers: Morphogenic Inorganic Biopolymers for Rapid Prototyping Chain

Cited by 9 publications

References 104 publications

Applications of 3D printing on craniofacial bone repair: A systematic review

Applications of 3D printing on craniofacial bone repair: A systematic review

Three‐Dimensional Bioprinting Materials with Potential Application in Preprosthetic Surgery

Methods of Monitoring Cell Fate and Tissue Growth in Three-Dimensional Scaffold-Based Strategies forIn VitroTissue Engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About