Literature DB >> 27080376

Indirect Rapid Prototyping: Opening Up Unprecedented Opportunities in Scaffold Design and Applications.

Annemie Houben1, Jasper Van Hoorick1,2, Jürgen Van Erps2, Hugo Thienpont1,2, Sandra Van Vlierberghe1,2, Peter Dubruel3.   

Abstract

Over the past decades, solid freeform fabrication (SFF) has emerged as the main technology for the production of scaffolds for tissue engineering applications as a result of the architectural versatility. However, certain limitations have also arisen, primarily associated with the available, rather limited range of materials suitable for processing. To overcome these limitations, several research groups have been exploring novel methodologies through which a construct, generated via SFF, is applied as a sacrificial mould for production of the final construct. The technique combines the benefits of SFF techniques in terms of controlled, patient-specific design with a large freedom in material selection associated with conventional scaffold production techniques. Consequently, well-defined 3D scaffolds can be generated in a straightforward manner from previously difficult to print and even "unprintable" materials due to thermomechanical properties that do not match the often strict temperature and pressure requirements for direct rapid prototyping. These include several biomaterials, thermally degradable materials, ceramics and composites. Since it can be combined with conventional pore forming techniques, indirect rapid prototyping (iRP) enables the creation of a hierarchical porosity in the final scaffold with micropores inside the struts. Consequently, scaffolds and implants for applications in both soft and hard tissue regeneration have been reported. In this review, an overview of different iRP strategies and materials are presented from the first reports of the approach at the turn of the century until now.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Indirect 3D printing; Indirect rapid prototyping; Indirect solid free form fabrication; Lost-mould; Tissue engineering

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27080376     DOI: 10.1007/s10439-016-1610-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0090-6964            Impact factor:   3.934


  5 in total

1.  Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)/poly(ethylene glycol) scaffolds with different microstructure: the effect on growth of mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  A P Bonartsev; I I Zharkova; V V Voinova; E S Kuznetsova; V A Zhuikov; T K Makhina; V L Myshkina; D M Potashnikova; D V Chesnokova; D D Khaydapova; G A Bonartseva; K V Shaitan
Journal:  3 Biotech       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 2.  Design for Additive Bio-Manufacturing: From Patient-Specific Medical Devices to Rationally Designed Meta-Biomaterials.

Authors:  Amir A Zadpoor
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 3.  Biodegradable Inks in Indirect Three-Dimensional Bioprinting for Tissue Vascularization.

Authors:  Yiting Ze; Yanxi Li; Linyang Huang; Yixin Shi; Peiran Li; Ping Gong; Jie Lin; Yang Yao
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-03-25

Review 4.  Two-photon polymerization for 3D biomedical scaffolds: Overview and updates.

Authors:  Xian Jing; Hongxun Fu; Baojun Yu; Meiyan Sun; Liye Wang
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-08-22

5.  Three-dimensional printed polylactic acid and hydroxyapatite composite scaffold with urine-derived stem cells as a treatment for bone defects.

Authors:  Xiang Zhang; Jia-Lei Chen; Fei Xing; Xin Duan
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 4.727

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.