| Literature DB >> 34026288 |
Lan Li1,2,3, Jianping Shi1,4, Kaiwei Ma2, Jing Jin1, Peng Wang1,3, Huixin Liang1,3, Yi Cao5, Xingsong Wang2, Qing Jiang1,3.
Abstract
Introduction: The traditional clinical treatment of long segmental bone defects usually requires multiple operations and depends on donor availability. The 3D bio-printing technology constitutes a great potential therapeutic tool for such an injury. However, in situ 3D bio-printing remains a major challenge.Entities:
Keywords: 3D bio-printing; In situ; Regenerative medicine; Robotic; Tissue engineering
Year: 2020 PMID: 34026288 PMCID: PMC8132211 DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.11.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Res ISSN: 2090-1224 Impact factor: 10.479
Fig. 1Crosslinking time and compressibility of the bio-ink. (A) Crosslinking times of filaments with different diameters under different UV light intensities. (B) Compressibility of the bio-ink. (C) Stress–strain curves of the bio-ink. The compression strains in various cycles were 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%, respectively. (D) Dissipated energy levels in various cycles. (E) Compression-relaxation cycles to the same specimen for 20 cycles with no interruption between consecutive cycles. The compression strain was set at 30%. (F) Dissipated energy (black) and recovery percentage (red) of the bio-ink.
Fig. 2Biocompatibility assessment of the bio-ink. (A) Gene expression levels at days 7 and 14. (B,C) ALP activity at day 7 and 21. *p < 0.05.
Fig. 3In vitro printing test results. (A) 3D comparison between the 3D printed sample (before accuracy improvement) and the intact bone. (B) 3D comparison between the 3D printed sample (after accuracy improvement) and the intact bone.
Fig. 4Whole process of in situ 3D bio-printing. (A) Flow chart of the in vivo study. (B) General view of the robotic manipulator-based 3D printer. (C) The process of in situ printing. (D) Printed scaffold, with a porous structure.
Fig. 5In vivo study results. (A) Micro CT scans of the blank control and 3DP groups 12 weeks post-surgery. (B) 3D reconstruction of the blank control and 3DP groups at 12 postoperative weeks. (C) BV/TV ratios. (D) Trabecular morphology. *p < 0.05.
Micro-CT findings.
| Control group | 3DP group | |
|---|---|---|
| BV/TV (%) | 0.5347 ± 0.0879 | 0.7480 ± 0.1251 |
| Tb.N (1/mm) | 1.2139 ± 0.2303 | 1.5387 ± 0.4477 |
| Tb.Th (μm) | 0.4589 ± 0.1332 | 0.7757 ± 0.1091 |
| Tb.Sp (μm) | 0.7148 ± 0.1863 | 0.3866 ± 0.1363 |
Fig. 6Goldner trichrome results. (A) General view of the injured region in the blank control group. Goldner trichrome stained sections analyzed at 40x (B) and 100x (C) in the control group. (D) General view of the injured region in the 3DP group. Goldner trichrome stained samples assessed at 40x (E) and 100x (F) in the 3DP group.