Orthopaedic 3D Printing in Orthopaedic Medicine

Fournet, Margaret Brennan; Azaman, Farah Alwani; Gunbay, Suzan; Chen, Yuan Yuan; Devine, Declan M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24532-0_6

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These have several advantages due to their ability to degrade once their function is fulfilled, omitting the need for a procedure to remove the fixator after recovery. This reduces costs and triggers enhanced bone healing compared to traditional plates and screws [86]. However, there are limitations with biodegradable polymers compared to conventional metallic bone fixators.…”

Section: Biocompatible Polymers and Co-polymersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Biomedical Properties of Common Additively Manufactured Biomaterials: A Concise Review

Ødegaard

Torgersen

Elverum

2020

Metals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomaterials are in high demand due to the increasing geriatric population and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and orthopedic disorders. The combination of additive manufacturing (AM) and biomaterials is promising, especially towards patient-specific applications. With AM, unique and complex structures can be manufactured. Furthermore, the direct link to computer-aided design and digital scans allows for a direct replicable product. However, the appropriate selection of biomaterials and corresponding AM methods can be challenging but is a key factor for success. This article provides a concise material selection guide for the AM biomedical field. After providing a general description of biomaterial classes—biotolerant, bioinert, bioactive, and biodegradable—we give an overview of common ceramic, polymeric, and metallic biomaterials that can be produced by AM and review their biomedical and mechanical properties. As the field of load-bearing metallic implants experiences rapid growth, we dedicate a large portion of this review to this field and portray interesting future research directions. This article provides a general overview of the field, but it also provides possibilities for deepening the knowledge in specific aspects as it comprises comprehensive tables including materials, applications, AM techniques, and references.

show abstract

Section: Biocompatible Polymers and Co-polymersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Biomedical Properties of Common Additively Manufactured Biomaterials: A Concise Review

Ødegaard

Torgersen

Elverum

2020

Metals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biodegradable scaffolds for bone tissue engineering are of great interest to researchers due to their promising characteristics and performance in mimicking the extracellular matrices in promoting natural bone healing [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. These engineered scaffolds are great alternatives to the natural-sourced treatments available, such as bone grafts, despite their gold-standard properties, due to the multiple surgical interventions required (autografts) as well as the existing risk of immune rejection (allografts) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancement of Scaffold In Vivo Biodegradability for Bone Regeneration Using P28 Peptide Formulations

Azaman

Fournet²,

Hamid

et al. 2023

Pharmaceuticals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of bone tissue engineering has shown a great variety of bone graft substitute materials under development to date, with the aim to reconstruct new bone tissue while maintaining characteristics close to the native bone. Currently, insufficient scaffold degradation remains the critical limitation for the success of tailoring the bone formation turnover rate. This study examines novel scaffold formulations to improve the degradation rate in vivo, utilising chitosan (CS), hydroxyapatite (HAp) and fluorapatite (FAp) at different ratios. Previously, the P28 peptide was reported to present similar, if not better performance in new bone production to its native protein, bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2), in promoting osteogenesis in vivo. Therefore, various P28 concentrations were incorporated into the CS/HAp/FAp scaffolds for implantation in vivo. H&E staining shows minimal scaffold traces in most of the defects induced after eight weeks, showing the enhanced biodegradability of the scaffolds in vivo. The HE stain highlighted the thickened periosteum indicating a new bone formation in the scaffolds, where CS/HAp/FAp/P28 75 µg and CS/HAp/FAp/P28 150 µg showed the cortical and trabecular thickening. CS/HAp/FAp 1:1 P28 150 µg scaffolds showed a higher intensity of calcein green label with the absence of xylenol orange label, which indicates that mineralisation and remodelling was not ongoing four days prior to sacrifice. Conversely, double labelling was observed in the CS/HAp/FAp 1:1 P28 25 µg and CS/HAp/FAp/P28 75 µg, which indicates continued mineralisation at days ten and four prior to sacrifice. Based on the HE and fluorochrome label, CS/HAp/FAp 1:1 with P28 peptides presented a consistent positive osteoinduction following the implantation in the femoral condyle defects. These results show the ability of this tailored formulation to improve the scaffold degradation for bone regeneration and present a cost-effective alternative to BMP-2.

show abstract

Orthopaedic 3D Printing in Orthopaedic Medicine

Cited by 2 publications

References 100 publications

Structural and Biomedical Properties of Common Additively Manufactured Biomaterials: A Concise Review

Structural and Biomedical Properties of Common Additively Manufactured Biomaterials: A Concise Review

Enhancement of Scaffold In Vivo Biodegradability for Bone Regeneration Using P28 Peptide Formulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About