34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pharmaceutical electrospinning and 3D printing scaffold design for bone regeneration

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references300

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Synthesis, properties, and biomedical applications of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels.

          Gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels have been widely used for various biomedical applications due to their suitable biological properties and tunable physical characteristics. GelMA hydrogels closely resemble some essential properties of native extracellular matrix (ECM) due to the presence of cell-attaching and matrix metalloproteinase responsive peptide motifs, which allow cells to proliferate and spread in GelMA-based scaffolds. GelMA is also versatile from a processing perspective. It crosslinks when exposed to light irradiation to form hydrogels with tunable mechanical properties. It can also be microfabricated using different methodologies including micromolding, photomasking, bioprinting, self-assembly, and microfluidic techniques to generate constructs with controlled architectures. Hybrid hydrogel systems can also be formed by mixing GelMA with nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes and graphene oxide, and other polymers to form networks with desired combined properties and characteristics for specific biological applications. Recent research has demonstrated the proficiency of GelMA-based hydrogels in a wide range of tissue engineering applications including engineering of bone, cartilage, cardiac, and vascular tissues, among others. Other applications of GelMA hydrogels, besides tissue engineering, include fundamental cell research, cell signaling, drug and gene delivery, and bio-sensing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.

            Porosity and pore size of biomaterial scaffolds play a critical role in bone formation in vitro and in vivo. This review explores the state of knowledge regarding the relationship between porosity and pore size of biomaterials used for bone regeneration. The effect of these morphological features on osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo, as well as relationships to mechanical properties of the scaffolds, are addressed. In vitro, lower porosity stimulates osteogenesis by suppressing cell proliferation and forcing cell aggregation. In contrast, in vivo, higher porosity and pore size result in greater bone ingrowth, a conclusion that is supported by the absence of reports that show enhanced osteogenic outcomes for scaffolds with low void volumes. However, this trend results in diminished mechanical properties, thereby setting an upper functional limit for pore size and porosity. Thus, a balance must be reached depending on the repair, rate of remodeling and rate of degradation of the scaffold material. Based on early studies, the minimum requirement for pore size is considered to be approximately 100 microm due to cell size, migration requirements and transport. However, pore sizes >300 microm are recommended, due to enhanced new bone formation and the formation of capillaries. Because of vascularization, pore size has been shown to affect the progression of osteogenesis. Small pores favored hypoxic conditions and induced osteochondral formation before osteogenesis, while large pores, that are well-vascularized, lead to direct osteogenesis (without preceding cartilage formation). Gradients in pore sizes are recommended for future studies focused on the formation of multiple tissues and tissue interfaces. New fabrication techniques, such as solid-free form fabrication, can potentially be used to generate scaffolds with morphological and mechanical properties more selectively designed to meet the specificity of bone-repair needs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The biology of fracture healing.

              The biology of fracture healing is a complex biological process that follows specific regenerative patterns and involves changes in the expression of several thousand genes. Although there is still much to be learned to fully comprehend the pathways of bone regeneration, the over-all pathways of both the anatomical and biochemical events have been thoroughly investigated. These efforts have provided a general understanding of how fracture healing occurs. Following the initial trauma, bone heals by either direct intramembranous or indirect fracture healing, which consists of both intramembranous and endochondral bone formation. The most common pathway is indirect healing, since direct bone healing requires an anatomical reduction and rigidly stable conditions, commonly only obtained by open reduction and internal fixation. However, when such conditions are achieved, the direct healing cascade allows the bone structure to immediately regenerate anatomical lamellar bone and the Haversian systems without any remodelling steps necessary. In all other non-stable conditions, bone healing follows a specific biological pathway. It involves an acute inflammatory response including the production and release of several important molecules, and the recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells in order to generate a primary cartilaginous callus. This primary callus later undergoes revascularisation and calcification, and is finally remodelled to fully restore a normal bone structure. In this article we summarise the basic biology of fracture healing. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews
                Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews
                Elsevier BV
                0169409X
                July 2021
                July 2021
                : 174
                : 504-534
                Article
                10.1016/j.addr.2021.05.007
                33991588
                26d7a56f-6754-4cdf-b5e6-b99b453e2a87
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article