Minimally Invasive and Regenerative Therapeutics

Ashammakhi, Nureddin; Ahadian, Samad; Darabi, Mohammad Ali; Tahchi, Mario El; Lee, Junmin; Suthiwanich, Kasinan; Sheikhi, Amir; Dokmeci, Mehmet R.; Öklü, Rahmi; Khademhosseini, Ali

doi:10.1002/adma.201804041

Cited by 137 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 410 publications

(646 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Minimally invasive procedures help avoid surgical complications and decrease the severity of inflammation, both important factors to be considered in the design of the “smart” delivery systems. [ 171 ] Commercialization of these technologies relies on a balance of these factors with regulatory opinions and administration procedures and must be considered carefully to expand a materials' applications.…”

Section: Conclusion and Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Stimuli‐Responsive Delivery of Growth Factors for Tissue Engineering

Jiang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Adv Healthcare Materials

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth factors (GFs) play a crucial role in directing stem cell behavior and transmitting information between different cell populations for tissue regeneration. However, their utility as therapeutics is limited by their short half‐life within the physiological microenvironment and significant side effects caused by off‐target effects or improper dosage. “Smart” materials that can not only sustain therapeutic delivery over a treatment period but also facilitate on‐demand release upon activation are attracting significant interest in the field of GF delivery for tissue engineering. Three properties are essential in engineering these “smart” materials: 1) the cargo vehicle protects the encapsulated therapeutic; 2) release is targeted to the site of injury; 3) cargo release can be modulated by disease‐specific stimuli. The aim of this review is to summarize the current research on stimuli‐responsive materials as intelligent vehicles for controlled GF delivery; Five main subfields of tissue engineering are discussed: skin, bone and cartilage, muscle, blood vessel, and nerve. Challenges in achieving such “smart” materials and perspectives on future applications of stimuli‐responsive GF delivery for tissue regeneration are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Stimuli‐Responsive Delivery of Growth Factors for Tissue Engineering

Jiang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Adv Healthcare Materials

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nowadays, tissue‐engineering strategies have been widely applied in tissue regeneration, such as the spine, urethra, cartilage, bone and so on . Similarly, some tissue‐engineering strategies have also been studied as a supplemental intervention for the surgical treatment of BTI injuries utilizing a combination of scaffolds, MSCs and GFs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of the Book‐Type Acellular Bone Scaffold and Fibrocartilage Scaffold for Bone‐Tendon Healing

Tang

Liu

et al. 2019

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone-tendon (B-T) healing is a clinical challenge due to its limited regeneration capability. Fibrocartilage regeneration and bone formation at the healing site are two critical factors for B-T healing. Promoting fibrocartilage regeneration and bone formation by tissue-engineering may be a promising treatment strategy. In this study, we innovatively fabricated two kinds of acellular scaffolds from bone or fibrocartilage tissues, namely the book-type the acellular bone scaffold (BABS) and the book-type acellular fibrocartilage scaffold (BAFS). Histologically, the two scaffolds well preserved the native extracellular matrix (ECM) structure without cellular components. In vitro studies showed BABS is superior in osteogenic inducibility, while BAFS has good chondrogenic inducibility. To comparatively investigate the efficacy on B-T healing, the BABS or BAFS were, respectively, implanted into a rabbit partial patellectomy model. Macroscopically, a regenerated bone-tendon insertion (BTI) was bridging the residual patella and patellar-tendon with no signs of infection and osteoarthritis. Radiologically, more new bone was formed at the healing interface in the BABS group as compared with the BAFS or control (CTL) groups (p < 0.05). Histologically, at postoperative week 16, histological scores were significantly better for regenerated fibrocartilage in the BAFS group or BABS group compared with the CTL group, but the BAFS group showed a significantly larger score than the BABS groups (p < 0.05). Biomechanical evaluation indicated a higher failure load and stiffness were shown in the BAFS group than those in the BABS or CTL groups at week 16 (p < 0.05). This study indicated that the BAFS is a more promising scaffold for B-T healing in comparison with the BABS.

show abstract

“…To enhance clinical applications of 3D bioprinting further, a handheld device was developed for in situ intraoperative printing . With the advances made in artificial intelligence and robotics, automatic robotic bioprinters may be realized in the future, and they may be controlled by an operating surgeon to achieve precise construct printing and implantation in the operating room …”

Section: Challenges and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Frontiers in Bone Bioprinting

Ashammakhi

Hasan

Kaarela

et al. 2019

Adv Healthcare Materials

Self Cite

189

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three‐dimensional (3D) bioprinting of cell‐laden biomaterials is used to fabricate constructs that can mimic the structure of native tissues. The main techniques used for 3D bioprinting include microextrusion, inkjet, and laser‐assisted bioprinting. Bioinks used for bone bioprinting include hydrogels loaded with bioactive ceramics, cells, and growth factors. In this review, a critical overview of the recent literature on various types of bioinks used for bone bioprinting is presented. Major challenges, such as the vascularity, clinically relevant size, and mechanical properties of 3D printed structures, that need to be addressed to successfully use the technology in clinical settings, are discussed. Emerging approaches to solve these problems are reviewed, and future strategies to design customized 3D printed structures are proposed.

show abstract

Minimally Invasive and Regenerative Therapeutics

Cited by 137 publications

References 410 publications

Stimuli‐Responsive Delivery of Growth Factors for Tissue Engineering

Stimuli‐Responsive Delivery of Growth Factors for Tissue Engineering

Comparative Evaluation of the Book‐Type Acellular Bone Scaffold and Fibrocartilage Scaffold for Bone‐Tendon Healing

Advancing Frontiers in Bone Bioprinting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About