Page 27 - v11i4
P. 27

International Journal of Bioprinting                             3D-printed scaffolds for osteochondral defect




            5. Discussion                                      within the cartilage changes at a length scale ranging from
                                                               10 to 100 μm. 149,150
            5.1. 3D printing methodology
            With  the  development  of  bioprinting  methods  and  ink   In contrast, scaffolds designed with a microarchitectural
            materials compatible with bone engineering, various   gradient strategy  tend to apply  SLA and DLP, 60,61,58,59  as
            3D printing techniques have been applied to fabricate   these printing methods offer higher resolution and can
            osteochondral scaffolds. Conventional 3D printing, such   create finely detailed microstructures. 151,152  In particular,
            as SLA, FDM, and selective laser sintering (SLS), involves   microstereolithography (μSLA) enables layer-by-layer
            layer-by-layer deposition of materials. In contrast,  3D   fabrication  of  high-resolution  constructs  with  spatially
            bioprinting  creates 3D artificial implants or complex   programmable  mechanical properties.  By precisely
            tissues through layer-by-layer deposition of living cells,   regulating exposure parameters (e.g., duration, light
            ECM, and other biomaterials. Common techniques for   intensity), this technique achieves z-axis control over both
            bioprinting include  inkjet-based  bioprinting,  extrusion-  microstructure and compressive modulus at 10–50 μm
            based bioprinting, and laser-assisted bioprinting. 147  resolution. 58,153  Such precision facilitates the development
                                                               of biomimetic osteochondral scaffolds replicating
               As shown in the studies of hierarchical printed scaffolds
            in Table 2, scaffolds employing different strategies tend to   native tissue’s hierarchical mechanical gradients. The
                                                               characteristics of various printing technologies are
            adopt specific 3D printing technologies. Extrusion-based   summarized in Table 3.
            printing  is the most commonly used method across all
            strategies. Extrusion-based bioprinting is compatible   In addition to manufacturing the structure of the
            with a wide variety of materials and does not involve   scaffold itself, creating fine micro-structures at the
            a heating process, making it particularly suitable for   interlayer interfaces using high-precision 3D printing
            printing materials with high cell densities and biological   techniques also positively impacts the interfacial bonding
            activity. 147,148  Due to nozzle size limitations, extrusion- and   strength.  Section 4.2 discusses methods to enhance
            inkjet-based 3D printing can only produce microstructures   interface strength through interlocking design. The
            at a minimum scale of 100 µm.  However, the fine strain   interlocking features created by high-resolution methods,
                                     58


            Table 3. Comparison of 3D printing technologies for osteochondral scaffold design

             Technology        Advantages                Disadvantages         Materials
             Inkjet-based      Low cost                  Limited resolution    Low-viscosity biomaterials (<20 mPa·s)
             printing 147,154,155  High cell viability   Non-continuous printing
                               High throughput           Nozzle clogging
                                                         Heat damage to cells
             Extrusion-based   Broad range of bioink selection  Limited resolution  Compatible with a wide range of materials
             printing 62,148,150,156  Short fabrication time  Shear stress damage to cells
                               High cell density and ≠viability
             Laser-based printing 157  High resolution   High cost             Photocurable resins/nanocomposites
                               High cell viability and density  Long fabrication time  Wide range of viscosities
                               Nozzle-free               Relatively low 3D built-up
                                                         capability
             SLA 158,159       High resolution           Limited materials     Resins only
                               Layer thickness adjustable  High cost
                               Smooth surface finish     Post-processing required
             FDM 73,151,160,161  Quick fabrication       Limited materials     Molten thermoplastic material only
                               Low-cost                  Limited resolution
                               Strong layer bonding
             DLP 61,162        High resolution           Limited materials     Photopolymers
                                                         Slow fabrication
             MEW 45,155        Ultra-fine fiber production  Limited materials  Thermoplastic conductive polymers
                               Precise porosity control  High cost
                                                         Slow fabrication
            Abbreviations: DLP, digital light processing; FDM, fused deposition modeling; MEW, melt electrospinning writing; SLA, stereolithography.


            Volume 11 Issue 4 (2025)                        19                            doi: 10.36922/IJB025120100
   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32