Page 239 - IJB-8-3

Dong, et al.
28. Kim BJ, Oh DX, Kim S, et al., 2014, Mussel-Mimetic Protein- 36. Chen YC, Lin RZ, Qi H, et al., 2012, Functional Human
Based Adhesive Hydrogel. Biomacromolecules, 15:1579–85. Vascular Network Generated in Photocrosslinkable Gelatin
https://doi.org/10.1021/bm4017308 Methacrylate Hydrogels. Adv Funct Mater, 22:2027–39.
29. Hong KH, 2017, Polyvinyl Alcohol/tannic Acid Hydrogel https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201101662
Prepared by a Freeze-thawing Process for Wound Dressing 37. Cui C, Fan C, Wu Y, et al., 2019, Water-Triggered
Applications. Polymer Bull, 74:2861–72. Hyperbranched Polymer Universal Adhesives: From Strong
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-016-1868-z Underwater Adhesion to Rapid Sealing Hemostasis. Adv
30. He X, Liu X, Yang J, et al., 2020, Tannic Acid-reinforced Mater, 31:1905761.
Methacrylated Chitosan/Methacrylated Silk Fibroin https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201905761
Hydrogels with Multifunctionality for Accelerating Wound 38. Li X, 2017, 2-Phenyl-4,4,5,5-tetramethylimidazoline-1-
Healing. Carbohydrate Polymers, 247:116689. oxyl 3-Oxide (PTIO) Radical Scavenging: A New and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116689 Simple Antioxidant Assay In Vitro. J Agric Food Chem,
31. Jin Y, Liu C, Chai W, et al., 2017, Self-Supporting Nanoclay 65:6288–97.
as Internal Scaffold Material for Direct Printing of Soft https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02247
Hydrogel Composite Structures in Air. ACS Appl Mater 39. Nadgorny M, Collins J, Xiao Z, et al., 2017, 3D-printing of
Interfaces, 9:17456–65. Dynamic Self-healing Cryogels with Tuneable Properties.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b03613 Polymer Chem, 9:01945.
32. Liang Q, Gao F, Zeng Z, et al., 2020, Coaxial Scale-Up Printing https://doi.org/9. 10.1039/C7PY01945A
of Diameter-Tunable Biohybrid Hydrogel Microtubes with 40. Zhang Y, Yang B, Zhang X, et al., 2012, A Magnetic Self-
High Strength, Perfusability, and Endothelialization. Adv healing Hydrogel. Chem Commun, 48:9305–7.
Funct Mater, 30:2001485. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2CC34745H
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202001485 41. Deng G, Li F, Yu H, et al., 2012, Dynamic Hydrogels with
33. Fan Y, Zhou G, Zhang G, et al., 2020, Comparative Study an Environmental Adaptive Self-Healing Ability and Dual
on the Mechanical Behavior of the Interface between Natural Responsive Sol-Gel Transitions. ACS Macro Lett, 1:275–9.
Cartilage and Artificial Cartilage. Soft Mater, 19:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/mz200195n
https://doi.org/10.1080/1539445X.2020.1851258 42. Discher D, Janmey P, Wang YL, 2005, Tissue Cells Feel
34. Gaharwar AK, Rivera CP, Wu CJ, et al., 2011, Transparent, and Respond to the Stiffness of Their Substrate. Science,
Elastomeric and Tough Hydrogels from Poly(ethylene Glycol) 310:1139–43.
and Silicate Nanoparticles. Acta Biomater, 7:4139–48. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1116995
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.07.023 43. Yang J, Liang J, Zhu Y, et al., 2021, Fullerol-hydrogel
35. Kong HJ, Wong E, Mooney DJ, 2003, Independent Control Microfluidic Spheres for In Situ Redox Regulation of Stem
of Rigidity and Toughness of Polymeric Hydrogels. Cell Fate and Refractory Bone Healing. Bioactive Mater,
Macromolecules, 36:4582–8. 6:4801–15.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ma034137w https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.05.024

Publisher’s note
Whioce Publishing remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

International Journal of Bioprinting (2022)–Volume 8, Issue 3 231