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
. 2025 Aug 8;18(16):3723.
doi: 10.3390/ma18163723.

Biocompatible Thermoplastics in Additive Manufacturing of Bone Defect Fillers: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects

Dagmara Słota  1 , Karina Niziołek  1 , Edyta Kosińska  1 , Julia Sadlik  1 , Agnieszka Sobczak-Kupiec  2
Affiliations
Review

Biocompatible Thermoplastics in Additive Manufacturing of Bone Defect Fillers: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects

Dagmara Słota et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

The development of materials engineering allows for the creation of new materials intended for 3D printing, which has become a key tool in tissue engineering, particularly in bone tissue engineering, enabling the production of implants, defect fillers, and scaffolds tailored to the individual needs of patients. Among the wide range of available biomaterials, thermoplastic polymers such as polycaprolactone (PCL), polylactic acid (PLA), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) are of significant interest due to their biocompatibility, processability, and variable degradation profiles. This review compiles the latest reports on the applications, advantages, limitations, and modifications in bone tissue engineering. It highlights that PCL and PLA are promising for temporary, resorbable scaffolds, while PEEK and PMMA are suitable for permanent or load-bearing implants. The inclusion of ceramic phases is frequently used to enhance bioactivity. A growing trend can be observed toward developing customized, multifunctional materials that support bone regeneration and biological integration. Despite ongoing progress, the biocompatibility and long-term safety of these materials still require further clinical validation.

Keywords: PCL; PEEK; PLA; PMMA; biomaterials; bone; composites; hydroxyapatite.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic overview of the bone regeneration process using 3D printing and biocompatible thermoplastic composites.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The chemical structural formula of PEEK.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The chemical structural formula of PCL [54].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Filament manufacturing and printing of bionic scaffolds. (A) Illustration presenting the workflow for producing composite filaments and printing bionic scaffolds. (B,C) SEM images displaying cross-sectional views of pure PCL and PCL/HAp composite filaments. (D,E) Elemental mapping of the filament cross-sections to assess material distribution. (F) Tensile stress–strain curves comparing mechanical properties of PCL and PCL/HAp filaments. (G) Raman spectroscopy results of HAp particles, PCL/HAp scaffolds, pure PCL scaffolds, and PCL powder. (H) X-ray diffraction patterns highlighting the crystalline structures of HAp, PCL/HAp scaffolds, PCL scaffolds, and PCL powders. (I,J) Thermogravimetric analysis and derivative thermogravimetry profiles for HAp, PCL/HAp composites, PCL scaffolds, and raw PCL material [68].
Figure 5
Figure 5
Illustrations of the chemical structures of L-, meso-, and D-lactides [85].
Figure 6
Figure 6
3D manufacturing process of PLA-based scaffolds.
Figure 7
Figure 7
PMMA properties.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Different tacticities of PMMA (blue dots = ester groups of the PMMA).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Verrier S., Alini M., Alsberg E., Buchman S.R., Kelly D., Laschke M.W., Menger M.D., Murphy W.L., Stegemann J.P., Schütz M., et al. Tissue engineering and regenerative approaches to improving the healing of large bone defects. Eur. Cells Mater. 2016;32:87–110. doi: 10.22203/eCM.v032a06. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Xue N., Ding X., Huang R., Jiang R., Huang H., Pan X., Min W., Chen J., Duan J.-A., Liu P., et al. Bone Tissue Engineering in the Treatment of Bone Defects. Pharmaceuticals. 2022;15:879. doi: 10.3390/ph15070879. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lasanianos N.G., Kanakaris N.K., Giannoudis P.V. Current management of long bone large segmental defects. Orthop. Trauma. 2010;24:149–163. doi: 10.1016/j.mporth.2009.10.003. - DOI
    1. Sohn H.S., Oh J.K. Review of bone graft and bone substitutes with an emphasis on fracture surgeries. Biomater. Res. 2019;23:4–10. doi: 10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang X., Jia C., Wu H., Luo F., Hou T., Li G., Lin S., Xie Z. Activated allograft combined with induced menbrane technique for the reconstruction of infected segmental bone defects. Sci. Rep. 2024;14:12587. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63202-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources