4.6 Review

Meniscus regeneration by 3D printing technologies: Current advances and future perspectives

Journal

JOURNAL OF TISSUE ENGINEERING
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/20417314211065860

Keywords

Meniscal tears; 3D printing and bioprinting; printable biomaterials; ultrastructure; tissue engineering

Funding

  1. 'Consorzio per la Ricerca Sanitaria' (CORIS) of the Veneto Region, Italy (L.i.f.e.L.a.b. Program) [DGR1017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Meniscal tears are a common orthopedic injury, and utilizing 3D printing technology for meniscus reconstruction shows promising potential, although there are still challenges in clinical applications.
Meniscal tears are a frequent orthopedic injury commonly managed by conservative strategies to avoid osteoarthritis development descending from altered biomechanics. Among cutting-edge approaches in tissue engineering, 3D printing technologies are extremely promising guaranteeing for complex biomimetic architectures mimicking native tissues. Considering the anisotropic characteristics of the menisci, and the ability of printing over structural control, it descends the intriguing potential of such vanguard techniques to meet individual joints' requirements within personalized medicine. This literature review provides a state-of-the-art on 3D printing for meniscus reconstruction. Experiences in printing materials/technologies, scaffold types, augmentation strategies, cellular conditioning have been compared/discussed; outcomes of pre-clinical studies allowed for further considerations. To date, translation to clinic of 3D printed meniscal devices is still a challenge: meniscus reconstruction is once again clear expression of how the integration of different expertise (e.g., anatomy, engineering, biomaterials science, cell biology, and medicine) is required to successfully address native tissues complexities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available