2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      3D Bioprinting of Heterogeneous Constructs Providing Tissue‐Specific Microenvironment Based on Host–Guest Modulated Dynamic Hydrogel Bioink for Osteochondral Regeneration

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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 references61

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

          Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for tissue/organ regenerative engineering

          Escalating cases of organ shortage and donor scarcity worldwide are alarming reminders of the need for alternatives to allograft tissues. Within the last three decades, research efforts in the field of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering continue to address the unmet need for artificial tissues and organs for transplant. Work in the field has evolved to create what we consider a new field, Regenerative Engineering, defined as the Convergence of advanced materials science, stem cell science, physics, developmental biology and clinical translation towards the regeneration of complex tissues and organ systems. Included in the regenerative engineering paradigm is advanced manufacturing. Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a promising and innovative biofabrication strategy to precisely position biologics, including living cells and extracellular matrix (ECM) components, in the prescribed 3D hierarchal organization to create artificial multi-cellular tissues/organs. In this review, we outline recent progress in several bioprinting technologies used to engineer scaffolds with requisite mechanical, structural, and biological complexity. We examine the process parameters affecting bioprinting and bioink-biomaterials and review notable studies on bioprinted skin, cardiac, bone, cartilage, liver, lung, neural, and pancreatic tissue. We also focus on other 3D bioprinting application areas including cancer research, drug testing, high-throughput screening (HTS), and organ-on-a-chip models. We also highlight the current challenges associated with the clinical translation of 3D bioprinting and conclude with the future perspective of bioprinting technology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A stem cell-based approach to cartilage repair.

            Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that involves the destruction of articular cartilage and eventually leads to disability. Molecules that promote the selective differentiation of multipotent mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) into chondrocytes may stimulate the repair of damaged cartilage. Using an image-based high-throughput screen, we identified the small molecule kartogenin, which promotes chondrocyte differentiation (median effective concentration = 100 nM), shows chondroprotective effects in vitro, and is efficacious in two OA animal models. Kartogenin binds filamin A, disrupts its interaction with the transcription factor core-binding factor β subunit (CBFβ), and induces chondrogenesis by regulating the CBFβ-RUNX1 transcriptional program. This work provides new insights into the control of chondrogenesis that may ultimately lead to a stem cell-based therapy for osteoarthritis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Printability and Shape Fidelity of Bioinks in 3D Bioprinting

              Three-dimensional bioprinting uses additive manufacturing techniques for the automated fabrication of hierarchically organized living constructs. The building blocks are often hydrogel-based bioinks, which need to be printed into structures with high shape fidelity to the intended computer-aided design. For optimal cell performance, relatively soft and printable inks are preferred, although these undergo significant deformation during the printing process, which may impair shape fidelity. While the concept of good or poor printability seems rather intuitive, its quantitative definition lacks consensus and depends on multiple rheological and chemical parameters of the ink. This review discusses qualitative and quantitative methodologies to evaluate printability of bioinks for extrusion- and lithography-based bioprinting. The physicochemical parameters influencing shape fidelity are discussed, together with their importance in establishing new models, predictive tools and printing methods that are deemed instrumental for the design of next-generation bioinks, and for reproducible comparison of their structural performance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Advanced Functional Materials
                Adv Funct Materials
                Wiley
                1616-301X
                1616-3028
                June 2022
                March 15 2022
                June 2022
                : 32
                : 23
                : 2200710
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Sports Medicine Beijing Key Laboratory of Sports Injuries Peking University Third Hospital Beijing 100191 P. R. China
                [2 ]State Key Laboratory of Organic‐Inorganic Composites Beijing Laboratory of Biomedical Materials Beijing University of Chemical Technology Beijing 100029 P. R. China
                [3 ]MOE Key Laboratory of Macromolecular Synthesis and Functionalization Department of Polymer Science and Engineering Zhejiang University Hangzhou 310027 P. R. China
                Article
                10.1002/adfm.202200710
                c4a881ca-4188-4c3f-9fe5-77d50f127018
                © 2022

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article