Yang Wu1,2, Patrick Kennedy3, Nicholas Bonazza3, Yin Yu4,5, Aman Dhawan3, Ibrahim Ozbolat1,2,6,7. 1. Engineering Science and Mechanics Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA. 2. The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Penn State College of Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA. 4. Institute for Synthetic Biology, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China. 5. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 6. Biomedical Engineering Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA. 7. Materials Research Institute, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treatment of chondral injury is clinically challenging. Available chondral repair/regeneration techniques have significant shortcomings. A viable and durable tissue engineering strategy for articular cartilage repair remains an unmet need. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the published data on bioprinted articular cartilage with regards to scaffold-based, scaffold-free and in situ cartilage bioprinting. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review of studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were searched and all articles evaluating the use of 3-dimensional (3D) bioprinting in articular cartilage were included. Inclusion criteria included studies written in or translated to English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and specifically discussing bioinks and/or bioprinting of living cells related to articular cartilage applications. Review papers, articles in a foreign language, and studies not involving bioprinting of living cells related to articular cartilage applications were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies for articular cartilage bioprinting were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The technologies, materials, cell types used in these studies, and the biological and physical properties of the created constructs have been demonstrated. CONCLUSION: These 27 studies have demonstrated 3D bioprinting of articular cartilage to be a tissue engineering strategy that has tremendous potential translational value. The unique abilities of the varied techniques allow replication of mechanical properties and advances toward zonal differentiation. This review demonstrates that bioprinting has great capacity for clinical cartilage reconstruction and future in vivo implantation.
OBJECTIVE: Treatment of chondral injury is clinically challenging. Available chondral repair/regeneration techniques have significant shortcomings. A viable and durable tissue engineering strategy for articular cartilage repair remains an unmet need. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the published data on bioprinted articular cartilage with regards to scaffold-based, scaffold-free and in situ cartilage bioprinting. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review of studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were searched and all articles evaluating the use of 3-dimensional (3D) bioprinting in articular cartilage were included. Inclusion criteria included studies written in or translated to English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and specifically discussing bioinks and/or bioprinting of living cells related to articular cartilage applications. Review papers, articles in a foreign language, and studies not involving bioprinting of living cells related to articular cartilage applications were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies for articular cartilage bioprinting were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The technologies, materials, cell types used in these studies, and the biological and physical properties of the created constructs have been demonstrated. CONCLUSION: These 27 studies have demonstrated 3D bioprinting of articular cartilage to be a tissue engineering strategy that has tremendous potential translational value. The unique abilities of the varied techniques allow replication of mechanical properties and advances toward zonal differentiation. This review demonstrates that bioprinting has great capacity for clinical cartilage reconstruction and future in vivo implantation.
Authors: Riccardo Levato; Jetze Visser; Josep A Planell; Elisabeth Engel; Jos Malda; Miguel A Mateos-Timoneda Journal: Biofabrication Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 9.954
Authors: Claudia Di Bella; Serena Duchi; Cathal D O'Connell; Romane Blanchard; Cheryl Augustine; Zhilian Yue; Fletcher Thompson; Christopher Richards; Stephen Beirne; Carmine Onofrillo; Sebastien H Bauquier; Stewart D Ryan; Peter Pivonka; Gordon G Wallace; Peter F Choong Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: Zohreh Izadifar; Tuanjie Chang; William Kulyk; Xiongbiao Chen; B Frank Eames Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: V H M Mouser; A Abbadessa; R Levato; W E Hennink; T Vermonden; D Gawlitta; J Malda Journal: Biofabrication Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 9.954
Authors: Yang Wu; Bugra Ayan; Kazim K Moncal; Youngnam Kang; Aman Dhawan; Srinivas V Koduru; Dino J Ravnic; Fadia Kamal; Ibrahim T Ozbolat Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Ashley N Leberfinger; Shantanab Dinda; Yang Wu; Srinivas V Koduru; Veli Ozbolat; Dino J Ravnic; Ibrahim T Ozbolat Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Giuseppe Talesa; Francesco Manfreda; Valerio Pace; Paolo Ceccarini; Pierluigi Antinolfi; Giuseppe Rinonapoli; Auro Caraffa Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2022-08-31
Authors: Tobias Lam; Tilo Dehne; Jan Philipp Krüger; Sylvia Hondke; Michaela Endres; Alexander Thomas; Roland Lauster; Michael Sittinger; Lutz Kloke Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Cheryl Lee; Cathal D O'Connell; Carmine Onofrillo; Peter F M Choong; Claudia Di Bella; Serena Duchi Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Julia Hauptstein; Leonard Forster; Ali Nadernezhad; Jürgen Groll; Jörg Teßmar; Torsten Blunk Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 5.923