Ruby Dwivedi1, Divya Mehrotra1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considering the structural and functional complexity of the craniofacial tissues, 3D bioprinting can be a valuable tool to design and create functional 3D tissues or organs in situ for in vivo applications. This review aims to explore the various aspects of this emerging 3D bioprinting technology and its application in the craniofacial bone or cartilage regeneration. METHOD: Electronic database searches were undertaken on pubmed, google scholar, medline, embase, and science direct for english language literature, published for 3D bioprinting in craniofacial regeneration. The search items used were 'craniofacial regeneration' OR 'jaw regeneration' OR 'maxillofacial regeneration' AND '3D bioprinting' OR 'three dimensional bioprinting' OR 'Additive manufacturing' OR 'rapid prototyping' OR 'patient specific bioprinting'. Reviews and duplicates were excluded. RESULTS: Search with above described criteria yielded 476 articles, which reduced to 108 after excluding reviews. Further screening of individual articles led to 77 articles to which 9 additional articles were included from references, and 18 duplicate articles were excluded. Finally we were left with 68 articles to be included in the review. CONCLUSION: Craniofacial tissue and organ regeneration has been reported a success using bioink with different biomaterial and incorporated stem cells in 3D bioprinters. Though several attempts have been made to fabricate craniofacial bone and cartilage, the strive to achieve desired outcome still continues.
BACKGROUND: Considering the structural and functional complexity of the craniofacial tissues, 3D bioprinting can be a valuable tool to design and create functional 3D tissues or organs in situ for in vivo applications. This review aims to explore the various aspects of this emerging 3D bioprinting technology and its application in the craniofacial bone or cartilage regeneration. METHOD: Electronic database searches were undertaken on pubmed, google scholar, medline, embase, and science direct for english language literature, published for 3D bioprinting in craniofacial regeneration. The search items used were 'craniofacial regeneration' OR 'jaw regeneration' OR 'maxillofacial regeneration' AND '3D bioprinting' OR 'three dimensional bioprinting' OR 'Additive manufacturing' OR 'rapid prototyping' OR 'patient specific bioprinting'. Reviews and duplicates were excluded. RESULTS: Search with above described criteria yielded 476 articles, which reduced to 108 after excluding reviews. Further screening of individual articles led to 77 articles to which 9 additional articles were included from references, and 18 duplicate articles were excluded. Finally we were left with 68 articles to be included in the review. CONCLUSION: Craniofacial tissue and organ regeneration has been reported a success using bioink with different biomaterial and incorporated stem cells in 3D bioprinters. Though several attempts have been made to fabricate craniofacial bone and cartilage, the strive to achieve desired outcome still continues.
Authors: G Rasperini; S P Pilipchuk; C L Flanagan; C H Park; G Pagni; S J Hollister; W V Giannobile Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Jessica M Williams; Adebisi Adewunmi; Rachel M Schek; Colleen L Flanagan; Paul H Krebsbach; Stephen E Feinberg; Scott J Hollister; Suman Das Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-01-23 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Johannes C Reichert; Amaia Cipitria; Devakara R Epari; Siamak Saifzadeh; Pushpanjali Krishnakanth; Arne Berner; Maria A Woodruff; Hanna Schell; Manav Mehta; Michael A Schuetz; Georg N Duda; Dietmar W Hutmacher Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 17.956