Comparison of the Translational Potential of Human Mesenchymal Progenitor Cells from Different Bone Entities for Autologous 3D Bioprinted Bone Grafts

Advancing bone regeneration: Unveiling the potential of 3D cell models in the evaluation of bone regenerative materials

Bone, a rigid yet regenerative tissue, has garnered extensive attention for its impressive healing abilities. Despite advancements in understanding bone repair and creating treatments for bone injuries, handling nonunions and large defects remains a major challenge in orthopedics. The rise of bone regenerative materials is transforming the approach to bone repair, offering innovative solutions for nonunions and significant defects, and thus reshaping orthopedic care. Evaluating these materials effectively is key to advancing bone tissue regeneration, especially in difficult healing scenarios, making it a critical research area. Traditional evaluation methods, including two-dimensional cell models and animal models, have limitations in predicting accurately. This has led to exploring alternative methods, like 3D cell models, which provide fresh perspectives for assessing bone materials' regenerative potential. This paper discusses various techniques for constructing 3D cell models, their pros and cons, and crucial factors to consider when using these models to evaluate bone regenerative materials. We also highlight the significance of 3D cell models in the in vitro assessments of these materials, discuss their current drawbacks and limitations, and suggest future research directions. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This work addresses the challenge of evaluating bone regenerative materials (BRMs) crucial for bone tissue engineering. It explores the emerging role of 3D cell models as superior alternatives to traditional methods for assessing these materials. By dissecting the construction, key factors of evaluating, advantages, limitations, and practical considerations of 3D cell models, the paper elucidates their significance in overcoming current evaluation method shortcomings. It highlights how these models offer a more physiologically relevant and ethically preferable platform for the precise assessment of BRMs. This contribution is particularly significant for "Acta Biomaterialia" readership, as it not only synthesizes current knowledge but also propels the discourse forward in the search for advanced solutions in bone tissue engineering and regeneration.

Advancements of 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine: Exploring cell sources for organ fabrication

3D bioprinting has unlocked new possibilities for generating complex and functional tissues and organs. However, one of the greatest challenges lies in selecting the appropriate seed cells for constructing fully functional 3D artificial organs. Currently, there are no cell sources available that can fulfill all requirements of 3D bioprinting technologies, and each cell source possesses unique characteristics suitable for specific applications. In this review, we explore the impact of different 3D bioprinting technologies and bioink materials on seed cells, providing a comprehensive overview of the current landscape of cell sources that have been used or hold potential in 3D bioprinting. We also summarized key points to guide the selection of seed cells for 3D bioprinting. Moreover, we offer insights into the prospects of seed cell sources in 3D bioprinted organs, highlighting their potential to revolutionize the fields of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

Repair of Cranial Defects in Rabbits with 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite/Polylactic Acid Composites

Objective

The safety and efficacy of three-dimensional- (3D-) printed hydroxyapatite/polylactic acid (HA-PLA) composites in repairing cranial defects were evaluated in a rabbit experimental model.

Methods

Twelve New Zealand rabbits were selected as experimental subjects. Two holes (A and B), each with a diameter of approximately 1 cm, were made in the cranium of each rabbit. Hole A served as the experimental manipulation, and hole B served as the control manipulation. A 3D-printed HA-PLA composite was used for placement onto hole A, whereas autologous bone powder was used for placement onto hole B. Samples from the experimental holes and the control holes were collected at 30 and 90 days after surgery. The obtained materials were examined in terms of their morphologies and histopathologies and were also subjected to simultaneous hardness tests.

Results

Both the 3D-printed HA-PLA composite and autologous bone powder were able to repair and fill the cranial defects at 30 days and 90 days after surgery. At 30 days after surgery, the microhardness of the area repaired by the HA-PLA composite was lower than that of the area repaired by autogenous bone powder (p < 0.01), but neither of these treatments reached the hardness of normal bone at this time (p < 0.01). At 90 days after surgery, there was no statistically significant difference in the microhardness of the repaired area from the 3D-printed HA-PLA composite compared with that of the repaired area from autologous bone powder (p > 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the hardness of the two repaired areas compared with that of the normal bone (p > 0.05). Hematoxylin-eosin staining showed that bone cells in the HA-PLA material in the experimental group grew and were arranged in an orderly manner. Bone trabeculae and marrow cavities were formed on the pore surface and inside of the HA-PLA scaffold, and the arrangement of bone trabeculae was regular.

Conclusion

3D-printed HA-PLA composites can induce bone regeneration, are biocompatible, have the same strength as autologous bone powder, are able to degrade, and are ultimately safe and effective for repairing cranial defects in rabbits. However, further research is needed to determine the feasibility of 3D-printed HA-PLA composites in human cranioplasty.

Strategies of Macrophages to Maintain Bone Homeostasis and Promote Bone Repair: A Narrative Review

Bone homeostasis (a healthy bone mass) is regulated by maintaining a delicate balance between bone resorption and bone formation. The regulation of physiological bone remodeling by a complex system that involves multiple cells in the skeleton is closely related to bone homeostasis. Loss of bone mass or repair of bone is always accompanied by changes in bone homeostasis. However, due to the complexity of bone homeostasis, we are currently unable to identify all the mechanisms that affect bone homeostasis. To date, bone macrophages have been considered a third cellular component in addition to osteogenic spectrum cells and osteoclasts. As confirmed by co-culture models or in vivo experiments, polarized or unpolarized macrophages interact with multiple components within the bone to ensure bone homeostasis. Different macrophage phenotypes are prone to resorption and formation of bone differently. This review comprehensively summarizes the mechanisms by which macrophages regulate bone homeostasis and concludes that macrophages can control bone homeostasis from osteoclasts, mesenchymal cells, osteoblasts, osteocytes, and the blood/vasculature system. The elaboration of these mechanisms in this narrative review facilitates the development of macrophage-based strategies for the treatment of bone metabolic diseases and bone defects.

3D-Printing for Critical Sized Bone Defects: Current Concepts and Future Directions

The management and definitive treatment of segmental bone defects in the setting of acute trauma, fracture non-union, revision joint arthroplasty, and tumor surgery are challenging clinical problems with no consistently satisfactory solution. Orthopaedic surgeons are developing novel strategies to treat these problems, including three-dimensional (3D) printing combined with growth factors and/or cells. This article reviews the current strategies for management of segmental bone loss in orthopaedic surgery, including graft selection, bone graft substitutes, and operative techniques. Furthermore, we highlight 3D printing as a technology that may serve a major role in the management of segmental defects. The optimization of a 3D-printed scaffold design through printing technique, material selection, and scaffold geometry, as well as biologic additives to enhance bone regeneration and incorporation could change the treatment paradigm for these difficult bone repair problems.

Periosteal Skeletal Stem and Progenitor Cells in Bone Regeneration

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The periosteum, the outer layer of bone, is a major source of skeletal stem/progenitor cells (SSPCs) for bone repair. Here, we discuss recent findings on the characterization, role, and regulation of periosteal SSPCs (pSSPCs) during bone regeneration.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several markers have been described for pSSPCs but lack tissue specificity. In vivo lineage tracing and transcriptomic analyses have improved our understanding of pSSPC functions during bone regeneration. Bone injury activates pSSPCs that migrate, proliferate, and have the unique potential to form both bone and cartilage. The injury response of pSSPCs is controlled by many signaling pathways including BMP, FGF, Notch, and Wnt, their metabolic state, and their interactions with the blood clot, nerve fibers, blood vessels, and macrophages in the fracture environment. Periosteal SSPCs are essential for bone regeneration. Despite recent advances, further studies are required to elucidate pSSPC heterogeneity and plasticity that make them a central component of the fracture healing process and a prime target for clinical applications.

Systematic review on the application of 3D-bioprinting technology in orthoregeneration: current achievements and open challenges

BACKGROUND

Joint degeneration and large or complex bone defects are a significant source of morbidity and diminished quality of life worldwide. There is an unmet need for a functional implant with near-native biomechanical properties. The potential for their generation using 3D bioprinting (3DBP)-based tissue engineering methods was assessed. We systematically reviewed the current state of 3DBP in orthoregeneration.

METHODS

This review was performed using PubMed and Web of Science. Primary research articles reporting 3DBP of cartilage, bone, vasculature, and their osteochondral and vascular bone composites were considered. Full text English articles were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over 1300 studies were retrieved, after removing duplicates, 1046 studies remained. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 114 articles were analyzed fully. Bioink material types and combinations were tallied. Cell types and testing methods were also analyzed. Nearly all papers determined the effect of 3DBP on cell survival. Bioink material physical characterization using gelation and rheology, and construct biomechanics were performed. In vitro testing methods assessed biochemistry, markers of extracellular matrix production and/or cell differentiation into respective lineages. In vivo proof-of-concept studies included full-thickness bone and joint defects as well as subcutaneous implantation in rodents followed by histological and µCT analyses to demonstrate implant growth and integration into surrounding native tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its relative infancy, 3DBP is making an impact in joint and bone engineering. Several groups have demonstrated preclinical efficacy of mechanically robust constructs which integrate into articular joint defects in small animals. However, notable obstacles remain. Notably, researchers encountered pitfalls in scaling up constructs and establishing implant function and viability in long term animal models. Further, to translate from the laboratory to the clinic, standardized quality control metrics such as construct stiffness and graft integration metrics should be established with investigator consensus. While there is much work to be done, 3DBP implants have great potential to treat degenerative joint diseases and provide benefit to patients globally.

Current Advances of Three-Dimensional Bioprinting Application in Dentistry: A Scoping Review

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technology has emerged as an ideal approach to address the challenges in regenerative dentistry by fabricating 3D tissue constructs with customized complex architecture. The dilemma with current dental treatments has led to the exploration of this technology in restoring and maintaining the function of teeth. This scoping review aims to explore 3D bioprinting technology together with the type of biomaterials and cells used for dental applications. Based on PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this systematic search was conducted by using the following databases: Ovid, PubMed, EBSCOhost and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were (i) cell-laden 3D-bioprinted construct; (ii) intervention to regenerate dental tissue using bioink, which incorporates living cells or in combination with biomaterial; and (iii) 3D bioprinting for dental applications. A total of 31 studies were included in this review. The main 3D bioprinting technique was extrusion-based approach. Novel bioinks in use consist of different types of natural and synthetic polymers, decellularized extracellular matrix and spheroids with encapsulated mesenchymal stem cells, and have shown promising results for periodontal ligament, dentin, dental pulp and bone regeneration application. However, 3D bioprinting in dental applications, regrettably, is not yet close to being a clinical reality. Therefore, further research in fabricating ideal bioinks with implantation into larger animal models in the oral environment is very much needed for clinical translation.

Additive Manufactured Polymers in Dentistry, Current State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives-A Review

3D-printing application in dentistry not only enables the manufacture of patient-specific devices and tissue constructs, but also allows mass customization, as well as digital workflow, with predictable lower cost and rapid turnaround times. 4D printing also shows a good impact in dentistry, as it can produce dynamic and adaptable materials, which have proven effective in the oral environment, under its continuously changing thermal and humidity conditions. It is expected to further boost the research into producing a whole tooth, capable to harmoniously integrate with the surrounding periodontium, which represents the ultimate goal of tissue engineering in dentistry. Because of their high versatility associated with the wide variety of available materials, additive manufacturing in dentistry predominantly targets the production of polymeric constructs. The aim of this narrative review is to catch a glimpse of the current state-of-the-art of additive manufacturing in dentistry, and the future perspectives of this modern technology, focusing on the specific polymeric materials.

Influence of Xenogeneic and Alloplastic Carriers for Bone Augmentation on Human Unrestricted Somatic Stem Cells

Alloplastic and xenogeneic bone grafting materials are frequently used for bone augmentation. The effect of these materials on precursor cells for bone augmentation is yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to ascertain, in vitro, how augmentation materials influence the growth rates and viability of human unrestricted somatic stem cells. The biocompatibility of two xenogeneic and one alloplastic bone graft was tested using human unrestricted somatic stem cells (USSCs). Proliferation, growth, survival and attachment of unrestricted somatic stem cells were monitored after 24 h, 48 h and 7 days. Furthermore, cell shape and morphology were evaluated by SEM. Scaffolds were assessed for their physical properties by Micro-CT imaging. USSCs showed distinct proliferation on the different carriers. Greatest proliferation was observed on the xenogeneic carriers along with improved viability of the cells. Pore sizes of the scaffolds varied significantly, with the xenogeneic materials providing greater pore sizes than the synthetic inorganic material. Unrestricted somatic stem cells in combination with a bovine collagenous bone block seem to be very compatible. A scaffold’s surface morphology, pore size and bioactive characteristics influence the proliferation, attachment and viability of USSCs.

Bioengineered Living Bone Grafts-A Concise Review on Bioreactors and Production Techniques In Vitro

It has been observed that bone fractures carry a risk of high mortality and morbidity. The deployment of a proper bone healing method is essential to achieve the desired success. Over the years, bone tissue engineering (BTE) has appeared to be a very promising approach aimed at restoring bone defects. The main role of the BTE is to apply new, efficient, and functional bone regeneration therapy via a combination of bone scaffolds with cells and/or healing promotive factors (e.g., growth factors and bioactive agents). The modern approach involves also the production of living bone grafts in vitro by long-term culture of cell-seeded biomaterials, often with the use of bioreactors. This review presents the most recent findings concerning biomaterials, cells, and techniques used for the production of living bone grafts under in vitro conditions. Particular attention has been given to features of known bioreactor systems currently used in BTE: perfusion bioreactors, rotating bioreactors, and spinner flask bioreactors. Although bioreactor systems are still characterized by some limitations, they are excellent platforms to form bioengineered living bone grafts in vitro for bone fracture regeneration. Moreover, the review article also describes the types of biomaterials and sources of cells that can be used in BTE as well as the role of three-dimensional bioprinting and pulsed electromagnetic fields in both bone healing and BTE.

Materials for Dentoalveolar Bioprinting: Current State of the Art

Although current treatments can successfully address a wide range of complications in the dentoalveolar region, they often still suffer from drawbacks and limitations, resulting in sub-optimal treatments for specific problems. In recent decades, significant progress has been made in the field of tissue engineering, aiming at restoring damaged tissues via a regenerative approach. Yet, the translation into a clinical product is still challenging. Novel technologies such as bioprinting have been developed to solve some of the shortcomings faced in traditional tissue engineering approaches. Using automated bioprinting techniques allows for precise placement of cells and biological molecules and for geometrical patient-specific design of produced biological scaffolds. Recently, bioprinting has also been introduced into the field of dentoalveolar tissue engineering. However, the choice of a suitable material to encapsulate cells in the development of so-called bioinks for bioprinting dentoalveolar tissues is still a challenge, considering the heterogeneity of these tissues and the range of properties they possess. This review, therefore, aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art by discussing the progress of the research on materials used for dentoalveolar bioprinting, highlighting the advantages and shortcomings of current approaches and considering opportunities for further research.

Applications of 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering: advantages, deficiencies, improvements, and future perspectives

Over the past decade, 3D bioprinting technology has progressed tremendously in the field of tissue engineering in its ability to fabricate individualized biological constructs with precise geometric designability, which offers us the capability to bridge the divergence between engineered tissue constructs and natural tissues. In this work, we first review the current widely used 3D bioprinting approaches, cells, and materials. Next, the updated applications of this technique in tissue engineering, including bone tissue, cartilage tissue, vascular grafts, skin, neural tissue, heart tissue, liver tissue and lung tissue, are briefly introduced. Then, the prominent advantages of 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering are summarized in detail: rapidly prototyping the customized structure, delivering cell-laden materials with high precision in space, and engineering with a highly controllable microenvironment. The current technical deficiencies of 3D bioprinted constructs in terms of mechanical properties and cell behaviors are afterward illustrated, as well as corresponding improvements. Finally, we conclude with future perspectives about 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering.