4.7 Article

3D-printed GelMA/CaSiO3 composite hydrogel scaffold for vascularized adipose tissue restoration

期刊

REGENERATIVE BIOMATERIALS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbad049

关键词

3D-printing; bioceramic; composite scaffold; adipogenesis; angiogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing number of mastectomies has led to the development of adipose tissue restoration techniques. However, current clinical strategies are not effective due to the need for personalized customization and timely vascularization in adipose regeneration. This study used 3D printing technology to create a composite hydrogel scaffold that promoted adipose tissue regeneration in vitro and in vivo, making it a potential candidate for adipose tissue engineering.
The increased number of mastectomies, combined with rising patient expectations for cosmetic and psychosocial outcomes, has necessitated the use of adipose tissue restoration techniques. However, the therapeutic effect of current clinical strategies is not satisfying due to the high demand of personalized customization and the timely vascularization in the process of adipose regeneration. Here, a composite hydrogel scaffold was prepared by three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, applying gelatin methacrylate anhydride (GelMA) as printing ink and calcium silicate (CS) bioceramic as an active ingredient for breast adipose tissue regeneration. The in vitro experiments showed that the composite hydrogel scaffolds could not only be customized with controllable architectures, but also significantly stimulated both 3T3-L1 preadipocytes and human umbilical vein endothelial cells in multiple cell behaviors, including cell adhesion, proliferation, migration and differentiation. Moreover, the composite scaffold promoted vascularized adipose tissue restoration under the skin of nude mice in vivo. These findings suggest that 3D-printed GelMA/CS composite scaffolds might be a good candidate for adipose tissue engineering.

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