Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Mar 5;16(5):706.
doi: 10.3390/polym16050706.

A 3D-Printed Scaffold for Repairing Bone Defects

Jianghui Dong  1 , Hangxing Ding  1 , Qin Wang  1 , Liping Wang  1
Affiliations
Review

A 3D-Printed Scaffold for Repairing Bone Defects

Jianghui Dong et al. Polymers (Basel). .

Abstract

The treatment of bone defects has always posed challenges in the field of orthopedics. Scaffolds, as a vital component of bone tissue engineering, offer significant advantages in the research and treatment of clinical bone defects. This study aims to provide an overview of how 3D printing technology is applied in the production of bone repair scaffolds. Depending on the materials used, the 3D-printed scaffolds can be classified into two types: single-component scaffolds and composite scaffolds. We have conducted a comprehensive analysis of material composition, the characteristics of 3D printing, performance, advantages, disadvantages, and applications for each scaffold type. Furthermore, based on the current research status and progress, we offer suggestions for future research in this area. In conclusion, this review acts as a valuable reference for advancing the research in the field of bone repair scaffolds.

Keywords: 3D-printed scaffold; ceramic material; gelatin composite scaffolds; polycaprolactone composite scaffolds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Nanofiber scaffolds for a bone defect. (A). BBP functionalized gelatin scaffold [142]. (B). A 3D PLA nanofibrous scaffold obtained using a modified CO2 foaming technique [145]. (C). PLGA wet electrospun nanofiber scaffold [143]. (D). Nanofibrous PHBV/nano-HAp scaffolds filled with USSCs [144].
Figure 3
Figure 3
The 3D-printed chitosan composite scaffolds. (A). The 3D hydrogel structure of chitosan/cellulose nanofibers [195]. (B). The device used for the 3D-printed HA/Chitosan/PVA scaffolds [193]. (C). The 3D-printed HA/chitosan/genipin composite scaffolds [188]. (D). the extrusion-bioprinted CNCs/chitosan bio-ink for bone defect scaffolds [196].
Figure 4
Figure 4
The 3D-printed PLA composite scaffolds. (A). The FDM-printed PLLA/nHA composite scaffold [212], (B). the FDM-printed cross-section of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites (FRTPs) [216], (C). a comparison of differentiation process induced by FDM-printed PLA + HA and PLA + BG scaffolds [213].
Figure 2
Figure 2
The 3D-printed CPC bone cement composite scaffolds. (A). The 3D printing process of CaP slurry containing PLGA fibers [173]. (B). the biphasic CPC-alginate scaffold (left) and the hybrid CaP-alginate scaffold (right) [177]. (C). Scanning electron microscopy of the PCL/CaP composite scaffold with a pore size of 600 μm [175]. (D). Model of the composite scaffold loaded with VEGF and CPC [176].
Figure 5
Figure 5
The 3D-printed PCL composite scaffolds. (A). The TCP/PCL composite scaffolds with different TCP and PCL content [220]. (B). Optical images of the PBGS-40 scaffold and its radial graphs demonstrating normalized toughness and in vitro cellular responses [222]. (C). The 3D printing of the PCL + 13-93B3 glass composite and hydrogel [223].
Figure 6
Figure 6
3The 3D-printed PGLA composite scaffolds. (A). The schematic diagram of low-temperature 3D printing technology combining PLGA/β-TCP scaffold with SB [229]. (B). The preparation of the peptide/GO/β-TCP/PLGA scaffold [231].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schemitsch E.H. Size matters: Defining critical in bone defect size! J. Orthop. Trauma. 2017;31:S20–S22. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000978. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deng M., James R., Laurencin C.T., Kumbar S.G. Nanostructured polymeric scaffolds for orthopaedic regenerative engineering. IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci. 2012;11:3–14. doi: 10.1109/TNB.2011.2179554. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dimitriou R., Jones E., McGonagle D., Giannoudis P.V. Bone regeneration: Current concepts and future directions. BMC Med. 2011;9:66. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-66. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campana V., Milano G., Pagano E., Barba M., Cicione C., Salonna G., Lattanzi W., Logroscino G. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: From basic science to clinical practice. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2014;25:2445–2461. doi: 10.1007/s10856-014-5240-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cossío P., Pérez J., Lagares D.T., García A.G.-P., Padilla J. Relleno de cavidades óseas en cirugía maxilofacial con materiales autólogos. Rev. Esp. Cir. Oral Maxilofac. 2007;29:7–19.

LinkOut - more resources