Page 64 - IJB-7-4

Filament Structure, 3D printing, Bone Repair Scaffolds
Investigation of structural resorption behavior of biphasic 83. Wang H, Li Y, Zuo Y, et al., 2007, Biocompatibility
bioceramics with help of gravimetry, μCT, SEM, and XRD. and Osteogenesis of Biomimetic Nano-hydroxyapatite/
J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater, 104:546–53. Polyamide Composite Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33419 Biomaterials, 28:3338–48.
74. Sánchez-Salcedo S, Balas F, Izquierdo-Barba I, et al., 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.014
In Vitro Structural Changes in Porous HA/β-TCP Scaffolds in 84. Diao J, Yang JO, Deng T, et al., 2018, 3D-Plotted Beta-
Simulated Body Fluid. Acta Biomater, 5:2738–51. Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffolds with Smaller Pore Sizes
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.03.025 Improve In Vivo Bone Regeneration and Biomechanical
75. Diba M, Camargo WA, Brindisi M, et al., 2017, Composite Properties in a Critical-Sized Calvarial Defect Rat Model.
Colloidal Gels Made of Bisphosphonate-Functionalized Adv Healthc Mater, 7:1800441.
Gelatin and Bioactive Glass Particles for Regeneration of https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201800441
Osteoporotic Bone Defects. Adv Funct Mater, 27:1703438. 85. Shao H, He Y, Fu J, et al., 2016, 3D Printing Magnesium-
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201703438 doped Wollastonite/β-TCP Bioceramics Scaffolds with High
76. Jakus AE, Rutz AL, Jordan SW, et al., 2016, Hyperelastic\ Strength and Adjustable Degradation. J Eur Ceramic Soc,
bone\: A Highly Versatile, Growth Factor-free, 36:1495–503.
Osteoregenerative, Scalable, and Surgically Friendly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2016.01.010
Biomaterial. Sci Transl Med, 8:358ra127. 86. Deng C, Lin R, Zhang M, et al., 2019, Micro/Nanometer-
https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed. aaf 7704 Structured Scaffolds for Regeneration of Both Cartilage and
77. Lei M, Qu X, Liu H, et al., 2019, Programmable Subchondral Bone. Adv Funct Mater, 29:1806068.
Electrofabrication of Porous Janus Films with Tunable https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201806068
Janus Balance for Anisotropic Cell Guidance and Tissue 87. Wei Y, Gao H, Hao L, et al., 2020, Constructing a Sr2+-
Regeneration. Adv Funct Mater, 29:1900065. Substituted Surface Hydroxyapatite Hexagon-Like
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201900065 Microarray on 3D-Plotted Hydroxyapatite Scaffold to
78. Du Y, Liu H, Qin Y, et al., 2017, Selective Laser Sintering Regulate Osteogenic Differentiation. Nanomaterials,
Scaffold with Hierarchical Architecture and Gradient 10:1672.
Composition for Osteochondral Repair In Rabbits. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10091672
Biomaterials, 137:37–48. 88. Li X, Yuan Y, Liu L, et al., 2020, 3D Printing of Hydroxyapatite/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.05.021. Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffold with Hierarchical Porous
79. Zhai X, Ruan C, Ma Y, et al., 2018, 3D-Bioprinted Structure for Bone Regeneration. Biodes Manufact, 3:15–29.
Osteoblast-Laden Nanocomposite Hydrogel Constructs https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-019-00056-5
with Induced Microenvironments Promote Cell Viability, 89. Wang C, Lai J, Li K, et al., 2020, Cryogenic 3D Printing of
Differentiation, and Osteogenesis both In Vitro and In Vivo. Dual-delivery Scaffolds for Improved Bone Regeneration
Adv Sci, 5:1700550. with Enhanced Vascularization. Bioact Mater, 6:137–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201700550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.07.007
80. Inzana JA, Olvera D, Fuller SM, et al., 2014, 3D Printing 90. Pae H, Kang J, Cha J, et al., 2019, 3D-printed Polycaprolactone
of Composite Calcium Phosphate and Collagen Scaffolds for Scaffold Mixed with β‐Tricalcium Phosphate as a Bone
Bone Regeneration. Biomaterials, 35:4026–34. Regenerative Material in Rabbit Calvarial Defects. J Biomed
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.064 Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater, 107:1254–63.
81. Li X, Zou Q, Chen H, et al., 2019, In Vivo Changes of https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34218
Nanoapatite Crystals During Bone Reconstruction and the 91. Shao H, Ke X, Liu A, et al., 2017, Bone Regeneration in 3D
Differences with Native Bone Apatite. Sci Adv, 5:eaay6484. Printing Bioactive Ceramic Scaffolds with Improved Tissue/
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv. aay 6484 Material Interface Pore Architecture in Thin-wall Bone
82. Montalbano G, Molino G, Fiorilli S, et al., 2020, Synthesis Defect. Biofabrication, 9:025003.
and Incorporation of Rod-like Nano-hydroxyapatite into https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa663c
Type I Collagen Matrix: A Hybrid Formulation for 3D 92. Jin ZW, Wu RH, Shen JH, et al., 2018, Nonstoichiometric
Printing of Bone Scaffolds. J Eur Ceramic Soc, 40:3689–97. Wollastonite Bioceramic Scaffolds with Core-shell Pore
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.02.018 Struts and Adjustable Mechanical and Biodegradable

60 International Journal of Bioprinting (2021)–Volume 7, Issue 4