4.7 Review

Biocompatible tissue-engineered scaffold polymers for 3D printing and its application for 4D printing

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 476, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.146616

关键词

Tissue engineering scaffold; ECM; 3D printing; 4D printing; Biopolymer; 4D printed hydrogels; Process parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the advantages and applications of 3D and 4D printing in fabricating tissue engineering scaffolds, with a focus on the potential of hydrogels in 4D printing scaffolds. Furthermore, the effects of 3D and 4D printing parameters on the mechanical, morphological, and biological properties of scaffolds are investigated.
In severe tissue destruction, not only large number of cells are destroyed, but also the extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM is a three-dimensional (3D) network that provides essential physical scaffolds for the cellular constituents. It is necessary to fabricate a scaffold with the same geometry as the ECM of the desired tissue for the final tissue or organ to be made exactly in the shape of the natural body tissue or organ. 3D printers can print patient-specific scaffolds with complex geometric shapes and precise details due to their easy integration with imaging techniques. In addition, the combination of 3D printing with smart materials led to the emergence of 4D printing, which enables scaffolds to mimic the dynamic nature of tissues to a very large extent. This review presents the advantages of 3D and 4D printing compared to other methods of fabricating tissue engineering scaffolds and the biopolymers used in them. Furthermore, the presentation emphasizes the potential of hydrogels in the context of 4D printing scaffolds. In the following, due to the influence of the selection of process parameters on the quality and properties of the printed scaffolds, the effects of 3D and 4D printing parameters on the mechanical, morphological and biological properties of scaffolds is investigated.

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