Repair of Complex Craniofacial Bone Defects Using 3D-Printed Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffolds

Goetz, Joachim; Levine, Mitchell; Iyer, Satish R.; Clark, Elizabeth A.; Ricci, J.

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2013.06.164

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 36 included animal studies were published in scientific journals in English, during the period 2007-2017 [ [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56 ], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]]. One study was published as poster presentation [72].…”

Section: Animal Studies 51 Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vast majority of the defects were calvarial [35,37,[39], [40], [41], [42], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61 ], [62], [64], [65], [66], [67] [70], [71], [72]]. In approximately half of the studies, the scaffold was enhanced with biomolecules, such as BMP-2 and/or stem cells [35,36,39,40,42,[44], [45], [46], [47], [51], [52], [53], [54],57,58, [65], [66], [67], [68]].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost all researchers of animal studies pointed out two critical features of scaffold material, important for scaffold survival. The first one is their porosity (pore size, pore morphology, pore interconnectivity and distribution) [41,46,49,56,63,72,98]. Most studies conclude that the pores size of scaffolds should be 100-500 μm to steer the migration/proliferation/differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells, supply with oxygen/nutrients and to induce the diffusion of factors that trigger inner bone formation [35,37,42,46].…”

Section: Structural Scaffold Design and Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the defect geometry plays an important role to successful bone ingrowth; it is preferable to have extensive surface connection with native bone and thereby proximity with osteoprogenitors [58,59]. The quality of formed bone seems to be very good with trabecular-and marrow-like structures [49,55,72]. Interestingly, some studies report that the critical degree of bone filling in the defect area for placement of a dental implant is less than optimal volume (100%) and the studies report 40-60% of bone filling as adequate for support of a dental implant [59,62,99,100].…”

Section: D Printing Applications and Topography Of Bone Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…,69,73], followed by mandibular[38,51,57,63,68,70,71] and maxillary[36] ones. Microextrusion was most commonly used [[36],[37],[38],42,44,46,47,49,[53],[54],[55],61,64,66,67,[69],[70],[71],[72]], followed by inkjet printing[39,45,50,56,[58],[59],[60],62,65] and laser printing[35,40,41,48,52,57,68]. Most studies used degradable biomaterials, with only two exceptions[35,68].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Maroulakos

Kamperos

Tayebi

et al. 2019

Journal of Dentistry

115

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: Animal Studies 51 Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Structural Scaffold Design and Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Printing Applications and Topography Of Bone Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Maroulakos

Kamperos

Tayebi

et al. 2019

Journal of Dentistry

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Biomedical applications of three‐dimensional bioprinted craniofacial tissue engineering

Charbe

Tambuwala

Palakurthi

et al. 2022

Bioengineering & Transla Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anatomical complications of the craniofacial regions often present considerable challenges to the surgical repair or replacement of the damaged tissues. Surgical repair has its own set of limitations, including scarcity of the donor tissues, immune rejection, use of immune suppressors followed by the surgery, and restriction in restoring the natural aesthetic appeal. Rapid advancement in the field of biomaterials, cell biology, and engineering has helped scientists to create cellularized skeletal muscle-like structures. However, the existing method still has limitations in building large, highly vascular tissue with clinical application. With the advance in the three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technique, scientists and clinicians now can produce the functional implants of skeletal muscles and bones that are more patient-specific with the perfect match to the architecture of their craniofacial defects. Craniofacial tissue regeneration using 3D bioprinting can manage and eliminate the restrictions of the surgical transplant from the donor site. The concept of creating the new functional tissue, exactly mimicking the anatomical and physiological function of the damaged tissue, looks highly attractive. This is crucial to reduce the donor site morbidity and retain the esthetics. 3D bioprinting can integrate all three essential components of tissue

show abstract

Repair of Complex Craniofacial Bone Defects Using 3D-Printed Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffolds

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Biomedical applications of three‐dimensional bioprinted craniofacial tissue engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About