4.7 Review

Electrospinning and Additive Manufacturing: Adding Three-Dimensionality to Electrospun Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.674738

关键词

electrospininng; tissue engineering; additive manufactuing; hybrid scaffolds; nanofibers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrospinning technology produces fibers at micro- to nanometer scale, while AM technology offers geometrical freedom to build complex components quickly. Combining these two technologies can result in scaffolds that better match the natural architecture of human tissues.
The final biochemical and mechanical performance of an implant or scaffold are defined by its structure, as well as the raw materials and processing conditions used during its fabrication. Electrospinning and Additive Manufacturing (AM) are two contrasting processing technologies that have gained popularity amongst the fields of medical research i.e., tissue engineering, implant design, drug delivery. Electrospinning technology is favored for its ability to produce micro- to nanometer fibers from polymer solutions and melts, of which, the dimensions, alignment, porosity, and chemical composition are easily manipulatable to the desired application. AM, on the other hand, offers unrivalled levels of geometrical freedom, allowing highly complex components (i.e., patient-specific) to be built inexpensively within 24 hours. Hence, adopting both technologies together appears to be a progressive step in pursuit of scaffolds that better match the natural architecture of human tissues. Here, we present recent insights into the advances on hybrid scaffolds produced by combining electrospinning (melt electrospinning excluded) and AM, specifically multi-layered architectures consisting of alternating fibers and AM elements, and bioinks reinforced with fibers prior to AM. We discuss how cellular behavior (attachment, migration, and differentiation) is influenced by the co-existence of these micro- and nano-features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据