Search

Background: Autologous bone grafts remain the gold standard for craniofacial reconstruction despite limitations of donor-site availability and morbidity. A myriad of commercial bone substitutes and allografts are available, yet no product has gained widespread use because of inferior clinical outcomes. The ideal bone substitute is both osteoconductive and osteoinductive. Craniofacial reconstruction often involves irregular three-dimensional defects, which may benefit from malleable or customizable substrates. "Hyperelastic Bone" is a three-dimensionally printed synthetic scaffold, composed of 90% by weight hydroxyapatite and 10% by weight poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), with inherent bioactivity and porosity to allow for tissue integration. This study examines the capacity of Hyperelastic Bone for bone regeneration in a critical-size calvarial defect., Methods: Eight-millimeter calvarial defects in adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with three-dimensionally printed Hyperelastic Bone, three-dimensionally printed Fluffy-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) without hydroxyapatite, autologous bone (positive control), or left untreated (negative control). Animals were euthanized at 8 or 12 weeks postoperatively and specimens were analyzed for new bone formation by cone beam computed tomography, micro-computed tomography, and histology., Results: The mineralized bone volume-to-total tissue volume fractions for the Hyperelastic Bone cohort at 8 and 12 weeks were 74.2 percent and 64.5 percent of positive control bone volume/total tissue, respectively (p = 0.04). Fluffy-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) demonstrated little bone formation, similar to the negative control. Histologic analysis of Hyperelastic Bone scaffolds revealed fibrous tissue at 8 weeks, and new bone formation surrounding the scaffold struts by 12 weeks., Conclusion: Findings from our study suggest that Hyperelastic Bone grafts are effective for bone regeneration, with significant potential for clinical translation.

In part 1 of this article, the authors explore nanoscale modifications of the surfaces of biomaterials, which offer an exciting potential venue for the prevention of bacterial adhesion and growth. Despite advances in the design and manufacture of implants, infection remains an important and often devastating mode of failure. In part 2, additive technologies for tissue engineering, live cell printing (bioprinting), and tissue fabrication are briefly introduced. The similarities and differences between bioprinting and non-bio 3D-printing approaches and requirements are discussed, along with terminological definitions, current processes, requirements, and biomaterial and cell-type selection and sourcing., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite substantial attention given to the development of osteoregenerative biomaterials, severe deficiencies remain in current products. These limitations include an inability to adequately, rapidly, and reproducibly regenerate new bone; high costs and limited manufacturing capacity; and lack of surgical ease of handling. To address these shortcomings, we generated a new, synthetic osteoregenerative biomaterial, hyperelastic "bone" (HB). HB, which is composed of 90 weight % (wt %) hydroxyapatite and 10 wt % polycaprolactone or poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), could be rapidly three-dimensionally (3D) printed (up to 275 cm(3)/hour) from room temperature extruded liquid inks. The resulting 3D-printed HB exhibited elastic mechanical properties (~32 to 67% strain to failure, ~4 to 11 MPa elastic modulus), was highly absorbent (50% material porosity), supported cell viability and proliferation, and induced osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells cultured in vitro over 4 weeks without any osteo-inducing factors in the medium. We evaluated HB in vivo in a mouse subcutaneous implant model for material biocompatibility (7 and 35 days), in a rat posterolateral spinal fusion model for new bone formation (8 weeks), and in a large, non-human primate calvarial defect case study (4 weeks). HB did not elicit a negative immune response, became vascularized, quickly integrated with surrounding tissues, and rapidly ossified and supported new bone growth without the need for added biological factors., (Copyright © 2016, American Association for the Advancement of Science.)