3D printing of resorbable poly(propylene fumarate) tissue engineering scaffolds
- PDF / 1,051,048 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 585 x 783 pts Page_size
- 29 Downloads / 213 Views
Introduction The goal of tissue engineering (TE) is to design, rebuild, and replace damaged or diseased tissue that the body cannot repair unassisted.1 Key to the evolution of TE has been the concept of a scaffold, which is needed to guide and support tissue formation during the repair process.2–8 While there have been early clinical successes using a number of threedimensional (3D) scaffold strategies (see the Introductory article in this issue),9 scaffold design has continually evolved with technology over the last two decades.9,10 The optimal design is highly dependent on the clinical indication and envisioned surgical technique, but 3D printing technologies, including sintering, ablation, extrusion, and photochemical methods, have all shown the potential to transform the regenerative medicine industry and push it into mainstream clinical practice. Scaffold design, functionality, and chemistry have each been shown to contribute to the regenerative process.11 While the ability to design scaffolds morphologically12 and derivatize them with bioactive groups has evolved,13 there has been a lag in the development of new polymers and scaffold precursors available to bioengineers to further advance the frontier
of 3D printing for medical applications.14 The most recent generation of 3D scaffolds for TE typically uses degradable polymers that have been used in devices or formulations for applications approved for use in humans by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Polyesters, polyurethanes, and polylactides have received the most attention in FDAapproved resorbable implant products.15 Each has been used in extrusion-based printing technologies. However, the diversity of materials has been limited by the industry’s almost extreme aversion to the risk associated with the adoption of new materials and the uncertainty about how custom 3D technologies will be regulated. This aversion to risks has spilled over into the research community where the limitations of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of widely adopted materials have led to shortcomings in both research output and subsequent clinical performance. New materials that have shown promise in the laboratory and pre-clinically include amino acid-based poly(ester urea),16 tyrosine-derived polycarbonates,17 and poly(propylene fumarate) (PPF).18 Each possesses advantages and disadvantages, but failure to populate the innovation pipeline with new materials will continue to hinder their development and use in 3D printing. New materials
Erin P. Childers, Department of Polymer Science, The University of Akron, USA; [email protected] Martha O. Wang, Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, USA; [email protected] Matthew L. Becker, Department of Polymer Science, The University of Akron, USA; [email protected] John P. Fisher, Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, USA; jpfi[email protected] David Dean, Department of Plastic Surgery, The Ohio State University, USA; [email protected] DOI: 10.1557/mrs.2015.2
Data Loading...
