Journal
CARTILAGE
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 327-340Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1947603516665445
Keywords
regenerative medicine; additive manufacturing; bio-ink; bioprinting
Categories
Funding
- European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [309962]
- Dutch Arthritis Foundation
- European Research Council [647426]
- Histogenics, Inc.
- 3D BioCorp, Inc.
- General Electric, Inc.
- New York State Advanced Research Fund
- NIH [F31AR064695-01]
- National Institutes of Health [P01 AG007996]
- California Institute of Regenerative Medicine [PC1-08128]
- Shaffer Family Foundation
- Lora and Craig Treiber Family Foundation
- American Foundation for Surgery of the Hand
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery Northwell Health System
- Australian Research Council [FT110100166]
- National Health and Medical Research Council [1067108]
- Swiss National Science Foundation [CR32I3_146338]
- ReumaFonds [LLP-12] Funding Source: researchfish
- Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [CR32I3_146338] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
- National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1067108] Funding Source: NHMRC
- Australian Research Council [FT110100166] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting techniques can be used for the fabrication of personalized, regenerative constructs for tissue repair. The current article provides insight into the potential and opportunities of 3D bioprinting for the fabrication of cartilage regenerative constructs. Although 3D printing is already used in the orthopedic clinic, the shift toward 3D bioprinting has not yet occurred. We believe that this shift will provide an important step forward in the field of cartilage regeneration. Three-dimensional bioprinting techniques allow incorporation of cells and biological cues during the manufacturing process, to generate biologically active implants. The outer shape of the construct can be personalized based on clinical images of the patient's defect. Additionally, by printing with multiple bio-inks, osteochondral or zonally organized constructs can be generated. Relevant mechanical properties can be obtained by hybrid printing with thermoplastic polymers and hydrogels, as well as by the incorporation of electrospun meshes in hydrogels. Finally, bioprinting techniques contribute to the automation of the implant production process, reducing the infection risk. To prompt the shift from nonliving implants toward living 3D bioprinted cartilage constructs in the clinic, some challenges need to be addressed. The bio-inks and required cartilage construct architecture need to be further optimized. The bio-ink and printing process need to meet the sterility requirements for implantation. Finally, standards are essential to ensure a reproducible quality of the 3D printed constructs. Once these challenges are addressed, 3D bioprinted living articular cartilage implants may find their way into daily clinical practice.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available