Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics
Additive manufacturing (AM) allows the fabrication of customized bone scaffolds in terms of shape, pore size, material type, and mechanical properties. Combined with the possibility to obtain a precise 3D image of the bone defects using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, it is now po...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Advanced functional materials 2021-01, Vol.31 (5), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Advanced functional materials |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Garot, Charlotte Bettega, Georges Picart, Catherine |
description | Additive manufacturing (AM) allows the fabrication of customized bone scaffolds in terms of shape, pore size, material type, and mechanical properties. Combined with the possibility to obtain a precise 3D image of the bone defects using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, it is now possible to manufacture implants for patient‐specific bone regeneration. This paper reviews the state‐of‐the‐art of the different materials and AM techniques used for the fabrication of 3D‐printed scaffolds in the field of bone tissue engineering. Their advantages and drawbacks are highlighted. For materials, specific criteria, are extracted from a literature study: biomimetism to native bone, mechanical properties, biodegradability, ability to be imaged (implantation and follow‐up period), histological performances, and sterilization process. AM techniques can be classified in three major categories: extrusion‐based, powder‐based, and vat photopolymerization. Their price, ease of use, and space requirement are analyzed. Different combinations of materials/AM techniques appear to be the most relevant depending on the targeted clinical applications (implantation site, presence of mechanical constraints, temporary or permanent implant). Finally, some barriers impeding the translation to human clinics are identified, notably the sterilization process.
Researchers are showing a growing interest in 3D‐printed scaffolds for bone regeneration. Herein, the various advantages and drawbacks of scaffolds materials are discussed. In parallel, the different additive manufacturing techniques used in bone tissue engineering are compared. The potential of combinations of materials and additive manufacturing techniques is evaluated in view of clinical translation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/adfm.202006967 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7116655</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2481023163</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5657-35a1dbf00249f0c643e1cc381e8f05f14dad53d05cdeb33cc9c363684e2087cc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1vEzEQxS0Eoh9w5YgscYFDgr1ee3c5VFpSSpFSIUGRuFmOPU5cOXawd1P1v8chJUAvnGy9-c2zZx5CLyiZUkKqt8rY9bQiFSGiE80jdEwFFRNGqvbx4U6_H6GTnG8IoU3D6qfoiDHOaNvyYwS9MW5wW8BXKoxW6WFMLixxtEUYIDnl8VetrI3eZGxjwu9jAPwFlhAgqcHF8A5fx1uVDO43G-_0Lw27gIcV4Jl3wen8DD2xymd4fn-eom8XH65nl5P554-fZv18orngzYRxRc3ClrnqzhItagZUa9ZSaC3hltZGGc4M4drAgjGtO80EE20NFWmbQp6is73vZlyswWgIQ1JebpJbq3Qno3Ly30pwK7mMW9lQKgTnxeDN3mD1oO2yn8udRlhVN6wjW1rY1_ePpfhjhDzItcsavFcB4phlVbeC1oR3VUFfPUBv4phCWcWOoqRiVLBCTfeUTjHnBPbwA0rkLm25S1se0i4NL_8e94D_jrcA3R64dR7u_mMn-_OLqz_mPwEz7ra-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2481023163</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Garot, Charlotte ; Bettega, Georges ; Picart, Catherine</creator><creatorcontrib>Garot, Charlotte ; Bettega, Georges ; Picart, Catherine</creatorcontrib><description>Additive manufacturing (AM) allows the fabrication of customized bone scaffolds in terms of shape, pore size, material type, and mechanical properties. Combined with the possibility to obtain a precise 3D image of the bone defects using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, it is now possible to manufacture implants for patient‐specific bone regeneration. This paper reviews the state‐of‐the‐art of the different materials and AM techniques used for the fabrication of 3D‐printed scaffolds in the field of bone tissue engineering. Their advantages and drawbacks are highlighted. For materials, specific criteria, are extracted from a literature study: biomimetism to native bone, mechanical properties, biodegradability, ability to be imaged (implantation and follow‐up period), histological performances, and sterilization process. AM techniques can be classified in three major categories: extrusion‐based, powder‐based, and vat photopolymerization. Their price, ease of use, and space requirement are analyzed. Different combinations of materials/AM techniques appear to be the most relevant depending on the targeted clinical applications (implantation site, presence of mechanical constraints, temporary or permanent implant). Finally, some barriers impeding the translation to human clinics are identified, notably the sterilization process.
Researchers are showing a growing interest in 3D‐printed scaffolds for bone regeneration. Herein, the various advantages and drawbacks of scaffolds materials are discussed. In parallel, the different additive manufacturing techniques used in bone tissue engineering are compared. The potential of combinations of materials and additive manufacturing techniques is evaluated in view of clinical translation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1616-301X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1616-3028</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202006967</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33531885</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>3D printing ; Additive manufacturing ; Biodegradability ; Bioengineering ; bone regeneration ; Computed tomography ; Extrusion ; Implantation ; Life Sciences ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Materials science ; Mechanical properties ; Photopolymerization ; Pore size ; Porosity ; Regeneration (physiology) ; Scaffolds ; Sterilization ; Three dimensional printing ; Tissue engineering ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>Advanced functional materials, 2021-01, Vol.31 (5), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2020 Wiley‐VCH GmbH</rights><rights>2021 Wiley‐VCH GmbH</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5657-35a1dbf00249f0c643e1cc381e8f05f14dad53d05cdeb33cc9c363684e2087cc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5657-35a1dbf00249f0c643e1cc381e8f05f14dad53d05cdeb33cc9c363684e2087cc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0130-1000</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fadfm.202006967$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fadfm.202006967$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1416,27915,27916,45565,45566</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33531885$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-03247390$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garot, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bettega, Georges</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Picart, Catherine</creatorcontrib><title>Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics</title><title>Advanced functional materials</title><addtitle>Adv Funct Mater</addtitle><description>Additive manufacturing (AM) allows the fabrication of customized bone scaffolds in terms of shape, pore size, material type, and mechanical properties. Combined with the possibility to obtain a precise 3D image of the bone defects using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, it is now possible to manufacture implants for patient‐specific bone regeneration. This paper reviews the state‐of‐the‐art of the different materials and AM techniques used for the fabrication of 3D‐printed scaffolds in the field of bone tissue engineering. Their advantages and drawbacks are highlighted. For materials, specific criteria, are extracted from a literature study: biomimetism to native bone, mechanical properties, biodegradability, ability to be imaged (implantation and follow‐up period), histological performances, and sterilization process. AM techniques can be classified in three major categories: extrusion‐based, powder‐based, and vat photopolymerization. Their price, ease of use, and space requirement are analyzed. Different combinations of materials/AM techniques appear to be the most relevant depending on the targeted clinical applications (implantation site, presence of mechanical constraints, temporary or permanent implant). Finally, some barriers impeding the translation to human clinics are identified, notably the sterilization process.
Researchers are showing a growing interest in 3D‐printed scaffolds for bone regeneration. Herein, the various advantages and drawbacks of scaffolds materials are discussed. In parallel, the different additive manufacturing techniques used in bone tissue engineering are compared. The potential of combinations of materials and additive manufacturing techniques is evaluated in view of clinical translation.</description><subject>3D printing</subject><subject>Additive manufacturing</subject><subject>Biodegradability</subject><subject>Bioengineering</subject><subject>bone regeneration</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Extrusion</subject><subject>Implantation</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Materials science</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Photopolymerization</subject><subject>Pore size</subject><subject>Porosity</subject><subject>Regeneration (physiology)</subject><subject>Scaffolds</subject><subject>Sterilization</subject><subject>Three dimensional printing</subject><subject>Tissue engineering</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>1616-301X</issn><issn>1616-3028</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1vEzEQxS0Eoh9w5YgscYFDgr1ee3c5VFpSSpFSIUGRuFmOPU5cOXawd1P1v8chJUAvnGy9-c2zZx5CLyiZUkKqt8rY9bQiFSGiE80jdEwFFRNGqvbx4U6_H6GTnG8IoU3D6qfoiDHOaNvyYwS9MW5wW8BXKoxW6WFMLixxtEUYIDnl8VetrI3eZGxjwu9jAPwFlhAgqcHF8A5fx1uVDO43G-_0Lw27gIcV4Jl3wen8DD2xymd4fn-eom8XH65nl5P554-fZv18orngzYRxRc3ClrnqzhItagZUa9ZSaC3hltZGGc4M4drAgjGtO80EE20NFWmbQp6is73vZlyswWgIQ1JebpJbq3Qno3Ly30pwK7mMW9lQKgTnxeDN3mD1oO2yn8udRlhVN6wjW1rY1_ePpfhjhDzItcsavFcB4phlVbeC1oR3VUFfPUBv4phCWcWOoqRiVLBCTfeUTjHnBPbwA0rkLm25S1se0i4NL_8e94D_jrcA3R64dR7u_mMn-_OLqz_mPwEz7ra-</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Garot, Charlotte</creator><creator>Bettega, Georges</creator><creator>Picart, Catherine</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0130-1000</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics</title><author>Garot, Charlotte ; Bettega, Georges ; Picart, Catherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5657-35a1dbf00249f0c643e1cc381e8f05f14dad53d05cdeb33cc9c363684e2087cc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>3D printing</topic><topic>Additive manufacturing</topic><topic>Biodegradability</topic><topic>Bioengineering</topic><topic>bone regeneration</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Extrusion</topic><topic>Implantation</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Materials science</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Photopolymerization</topic><topic>Pore size</topic><topic>Porosity</topic><topic>Regeneration (physiology)</topic><topic>Scaffolds</topic><topic>Sterilization</topic><topic>Three dimensional printing</topic><topic>Tissue engineering</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garot, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bettega, Georges</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Picart, Catherine</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Advanced functional materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Garot, Charlotte</au><au>Bettega, Georges</au><au>Picart, Catherine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics</atitle><jtitle>Advanced functional materials</jtitle><addtitle>Adv Funct Mater</addtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>5</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1616-301X</issn><eissn>1616-3028</eissn><abstract>Additive manufacturing (AM) allows the fabrication of customized bone scaffolds in terms of shape, pore size, material type, and mechanical properties. Combined with the possibility to obtain a precise 3D image of the bone defects using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, it is now possible to manufacture implants for patient‐specific bone regeneration. This paper reviews the state‐of‐the‐art of the different materials and AM techniques used for the fabrication of 3D‐printed scaffolds in the field of bone tissue engineering. Their advantages and drawbacks are highlighted. For materials, specific criteria, are extracted from a literature study: biomimetism to native bone, mechanical properties, biodegradability, ability to be imaged (implantation and follow‐up period), histological performances, and sterilization process. AM techniques can be classified in three major categories: extrusion‐based, powder‐based, and vat photopolymerization. Their price, ease of use, and space requirement are analyzed. Different combinations of materials/AM techniques appear to be the most relevant depending on the targeted clinical applications (implantation site, presence of mechanical constraints, temporary or permanent implant). Finally, some barriers impeding the translation to human clinics are identified, notably the sterilization process.
Researchers are showing a growing interest in 3D‐printed scaffolds for bone regeneration. Herein, the various advantages and drawbacks of scaffolds materials are discussed. In parallel, the different additive manufacturing techniques used in bone tissue engineering are compared. The potential of combinations of materials and additive manufacturing techniques is evaluated in view of clinical translation.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33531885</pmid><doi>10.1002/adfm.202006967</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0130-1000</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1616-301X |
ispartof | Advanced functional materials, 2021-01, Vol.31 (5), p.n/a |
issn | 1616-301X 1616-3028 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7116655 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | 3D printing Additive manufacturing Biodegradability Bioengineering bone regeneration Computed tomography Extrusion Implantation Life Sciences Magnetic resonance imaging Materials science Mechanical properties Photopolymerization Pore size Porosity Regeneration (physiology) Scaffolds Sterilization Three dimensional printing Tissue engineering Transplants & implants |
title | Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T21%3A36%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Additive%20Manufacturing%20of%20Material%20Scaffolds%20for%20Bone%20Regeneration:%20Toward%20Application%20in%20the%20Clinics&rft.jtitle=Advanced%20functional%20materials&rft.au=Garot,%20Charlotte&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=5&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1616-301X&rft.eissn=1616-3028&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/adfm.202006967&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2481023163%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2481023163&rft_id=info:pmid/33531885&rfr_iscdi=true |