Advertisement

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 107–119 | Cite as

Fabrication of scaffolds in tissue engineering: A review

  • Peng Zhao
  • Haibing Gu
  • Haoyang Mi
  • Chengchen Rao
  • Jianzhong Fu
  • Lih-sheng TurngEmail author
Review Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Near-net Shaping Technology

Abstract

Tissue engineering (TE) is an integrated discipline that involves engineering and natural science in the development of biological materials to replace, repair, and improve the function of diseased or missing tissues. Traditional medical and surgical treatments have been reported to have side effects on patients caused by organ necrosis and tissue loss. However, engineered tissues and organs provide a new way to cure specific diseases. Scaffold fabrication is an important step in the TE process. This paper summarizes and reviews the widely used scaffold fabrication methods, including conventional methods, electrospinning, three-dimensional printing, and a combination of molding techniques. Furthermore, the differences among the properties of tissues, such as pore size and distribution, porosity, structure, and mechanical properties, are elucidated and critically reviewed. Some studies that combine two or more methods are also reviewed. Finally, this paper provides some guidance and suggestions for the future of scaffold fabrication.

Keywords

tissue engineering scaffolds electrospinning 3D printing molding techniques conventional methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. LZ18E050002), the Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51521064), the National Natural Science Foundation Council of China (Grant Nos. 51475420 and 51635006), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. 2017QNA4003).

References

  1. 1.
    Khorshidi S, Solouk A, Mirzadeh H, et al. A review of key challenges of electrospun scaffolds for tissue-engineering applications. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 2015, 10(9): 715–738Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guo B, Sun Y, Finne-Wistrand A, et al. Electroactive porous tubular scaffolds with degradability and non-cytotoxicity for neural tissue regeneration. Acta Biomaterialia, 2012, 8(1): 144–153Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang Y S, Xia Y. Multiple facets for extracellular matrix mimicking in regenerative medicine. Nanomedicine (London), 2015, 10(5): 689–692MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rustad K C, Sorkin M, Levi B, et al. Strategies for organ level tissue engineering. Organogenesis, 2010, 6(3): 151–157Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khademhosseini A, Vacanti J P, Langer R. Progress in tissue engineering. Scientific American, 2009, 300(5): 64–71Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kadler K. Matrix loading: Assembly of extracellular matrix collagen fibrils during embryogenesis. Birth Defects Research. Part C, Embryo Today, 2004, 72(1): 1–11Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cukierman E, Pankov R, Stevens D R, et al. Taking cell-matrix adhesions to the third dimension. Science, 2001, 294(5547): 1708–1712Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abbott A. Cell culture: Biology’s new dimension. Nature, 2003, 424(6951): 870–872Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee G Y, Kenny P A, Lee E H, et al. Three-dimensional culture models of normal and malignant breast epithelial cells. Nature Methods, 2007, 4(4): 359–365Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Botta L, et al. Preparation of three-layered porous PLA/PEG scaffold: Relationship between morphology, mechanical behavior and cell permeability. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2016, 54: 8–20Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Botta L, et al. Melt processed PCL/PEG scaffold with discrete pore size gradient for selective cellular infiltration. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 2016, 301 (2): 182–190Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Botta L, et al. Integration of PCL and PLA in a monolithic porous scaffold for interface tissue engineering. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2016, 63: 303–313Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lo Re G, Lopresti F, Petrucci G, et al. A facile method to determine pore size distribution in porous scaffold by using image processing. Micron (Oxford, England), 2015, 76: 37–45Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Odedra D, Chiu L, Reis L, et al. Cardiac tissue engineering. In: Burdick J A, Mauck R L, eds. Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering Applications. Vienna: Springer, 2011, 421–456Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollister S J. Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nature Materials, 2005, 4(7): 518–524Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Maio A, et al. Development of polymeric functionally graded scaffolds: A brief review. Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials, 2017, 15(2): e107–e121Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Botta L, et al. A facile and eco-friendly route to fabricate poly(lactic acid) scaffolds with graded pore size. Journal of Visualized Experiments Jove, 2016, 2016(116): e54595Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yousefi A M, Hoque M E, Prasad R G, et al. Current strategies in multiphasic scaffold design for osteochondral tissue engineering: A review. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 2015, 103(7): 2460–2481Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fong E L, Watson B M, Kasper F K, et al. Building bridges: Leveraging interdisciplinary collaborations in the development of biomaterials to meet clinical needs. Advanced Materials, 2012, 24 (36): 4995–5013Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee K W, Wang S, Dadsetan M, et al. Enhanced cell ingrowth and proliferation through three-dimensional nanocomposite scaffolds with controlled pore structures. Biomacromolecules, 2010, 11(3): 682–689Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hollister S J, Maddox R, Taboas J M. Optimal design and fabrication of scaffolds to mimic tissue properties and satisfy biological constraints. Biomaterials, 2002, 23(20): 4095–4103Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Butler D L, Goldstein S A, Guilak F. Functional tissue engineering: The role of biomechanics. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 2000, 122(6): 570–575Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chan B, Leong K. Scaffolding in tissue engineering: General approaches and tissue-specific considerations. European Spine Journal, 2008, 17(S4): 467–479Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dutta R C, Dey M, Dutta A K, et al. Competent processing techniques for scaffolds in tissue engineering. Biotechnology Advances, 2017, 35(2): 240–250Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sultana N, Wang M. Fabrication of HA/PHBV composite scaffolds through the emulsion freezing/freeze-drying process and characterisation of the scaffolds. Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine, 2008, 19(7): 2555–2561Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sachlos E, Czernuszka J. Making tissue engineering scaffolds work. Review: The application of solid freeform fabrication technology to the production of tissue engineering scaffolds. European Cells & Materials, 2003, 5: 29–40Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scaffaro R, Sutera F, Lopresti F. Using Taguchi method for the optimization of processing variables to prepare porous scaffolds by combined melt mixing/particulate leaching. 2017 (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mi H Y, Jing X, Turng L S. Fabrication of porous synthetic polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. Journal of Cellular Plastics, 2015, 51(2): 165–196Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holzwarth J M, Ma P X. Biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2011, 32(36): 9622–9629Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee K Y, Mooney D J. Hydrogels for tissue engineering. Chemical Reviews, 2001, 101(7): 1869–1880Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fallahiarezoudar E, Ahmadipourroudposht M, Idris A, et al. A review of: Application of synthetic scaffold in tissue engineering heart valves. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2015, 48: 556–565Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mikos A G, Thorsen A J, Czerwonka L A, et al. Preparation and characterization of poly(L-lactic acid) foams. Polymer, 1994, 35 (5): 1068–1077Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lanza R P, Langer R, Chick W L, et al. Principles of tissue engineering. Nature, 1997, 389(6650): 453Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nam Y S, Park T G. Porous biodegradable polymeric scaffolds prepared by thermally induced phase separation. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1999, 47(1): 8–17Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nam Y S, Park T G. Biodegradable polymeric microcellular foams by modified thermally induced phase separation method. Biomaterials, 1999, 20(19): 1783–1790Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aram E, Mehdipour-Ataei S. A review on the micro-and nanoporous polymeric foams: Preparation and properties. International Journal of Polymeric Materials and Polymeric Biomaterials, 2016, 65(7): 358–375Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mosadegh-Sedghi S, Rodrigue D, Brisson J, et al. Highly hydrophobic microporous low-density polyethylene hollow fiber membranes by melt‐extrusion coupled with salt-leaching technique. Polymers for Advanced Technologies, 2013, 24(6): 584–592Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reignier J, Huneault M A. Preparation of interconnected poly (-caprolactone) porous scaffolds by a combination of polymer and salt particulate leaching. Polymer, 2006, 47(13): 4703–4717Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Biswas D, Tran P, Tallon C, et al. Combining mechanical foaming and thermally induced phase separation to generate chitosan scaffolds for soft tissue engineering. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 2017, 28(2): 207–226Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mi H Y, Jing X, McNulty J, et al. Approaches to fabricating multiple-layered vascular scaffolds using hybrid electrospinning and thermally induced phase separation methods. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2016, 55(4): 882–892Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li D, Xia Y N. Electrospinning of nanofibers: Reinventing the wheel? Advanced Materials, 2004, 16(14): 1151–1170Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gañán-Calvo AM, Davila J, Barrero A. Current and droplet size in the electrospraying of liquids. Scaling laws. Journal of Aerosol Science, 1997, 28(2): 249–275Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Seidlits S K, Lee J Y, Schmidt C E. Nanostructured scaffolds for neural applications. Nanomedicine (London), 2008, 3(2): 183–199Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang R, Ma P X. Synthetic nano-fibrillar extracellular matrices with predesigned macroporous architectures. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 2000, 52(2): 430–438Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Doshi J, Reneker D H. Electrospinning process and applications of electrospun fibers. Journal of Electrostatics, 1995, 35(2–3): 151–160Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee H, Yeo M, Ahn S, et al. Designed hybrid scaffolds consisting of polycaprolactone microstrands and electrospun collagennanofibers for bone tissue regeneration. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials, 2011, 97B(2): 263–270Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee S J, Oh S H, Liu J, et al. The use of thermal treatments to enhance the mechanical properties of electrospun poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds. Biomaterials, 2008, 29(10): 1422–1430Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ramakrishna S, Fujihara K, Teo W E, et al. An Introduction to Electrospinning and Nanofibers. Singapore:World Scientific, 2005Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jenness N J, Wu Y, Clark R L. Fabrication of three-dimensional electrospun microstructures using phase modulated femtosecond laser pulses. Materials Letters, 2012, 66(1): 360–363Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McClure M J, Wolfe P S, Simpson D G, et al. The use of air-flow impedance to control fiber deposition patterns during electrospinning. Biomaterials, 2012, 33(3): 771–779Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yan G D, Yu J, Qiu Y J, et al. Self-assembly of electrospun polymer nanofibers: A general phenomenon generating honeycomb- patterned nanofibrous structures. Langmuir, 2011, 27(8): 4285–4289Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Badrossamay M R, McIlwee H A, Goss J A, et al. Nanofiber assembly by rotary jet-spinning. Nano Letters, 2010, 10(6): 2257–2261Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blakeney B A, Tambralli A, Anderson J M, et al. Cell infiltration and growth in a low density, uncompressed three-dimensional electrospun nanofibrous scaffold. Biomaterials, 2011, 32(6): 1583–1590Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hong S, Kim G. Fabrication of size-controlled three-dimensional structures consisting of electrohydrodynamically produced polycaprolactone micro/nanofibers. Applied Physics A, 2011, 103: 1009–1014Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Subramanian A, Krishnan U M, Sethuraman S. Fabrication of uniaxially aligned 3D electrospun scaffolds for neural regeneration. Biomedical Materials (Bristol, England), 2011, 6(2): 025004Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Uttayarat P, Perets A, Li M Y, et al. Micropatterning of threedimensional electrospun polyurethane vascular grafts. Acta Biomaterialia, 2010, 6(11): 4229–4237Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wang S D, Zhang Y Z, Wang HW, et al. Fabrication and properties of the electrospun polylactide/silk fibroin-gelatin composite tubular scaffold. Biomacromolecules, 2009, 10(8): 2240–2244Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wu H J, Fan J T, Chu C C, et al. Electrospinning of small diameter 3-D nanofibrous tubular scaffolds with controllable nanofiber orientations for vascular grafts. Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine, 2010, 21(12): 3207–3215Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhou J, Cao C B, Ma X L. A novel three-dimensional tubular scaffold prepared from silk fibroin by electrospinning. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2009, 45(5): 504–510Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Akturk O, Kismet K, Yasti A C, et al. Wet electrospun silk fibroin/gold nanoparticle 3D matrices for wound healing applications. RSC Advances, 2016, 6(16): 13234–13250Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heo J, Nam H, Hwang D, et al. Enhanced cellular distribution and infiltration in a wet electrospun three-dimensional fibrous scaffold using eccentric rotation-based hydrodynamic conditions. Sensors and Actuators. B, Chemical, 2016, 226: 357–363Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kasuga T, Obata A, Maeda H, et al. Siloxane-poly(lactic acid)- vaterite composites with 3D cotton-like structure. Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine, 2012, 23(10): 2349–2357Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yokoyama Y, Hattori S, Yoshikawa C, et al. Novel wet electrospinning system for fabrication of spongiform nanofiber 3-dimensional fabric. Materials Letters, 2009, 63(9–10): 754–756Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cai Y Z, Zhang G R, Wang L L, et al. Novel biodegradable threedimensional macroporous scaffold using aligned electrospun nanofibrous yarns for bone tissue engineering. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 2012, 100A(5): 1187–1194Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lee B L P, Jeon H, Wang A, et al. Femtosecond laser ablation enhances cell infiltration into three-dimensional electrospun scaffolds. Acta Biomaterialia, 2012, 8(7): 2648–2658Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Shim I K, Jung M R, Kim K H, et al. Novel three-dimensional scaffolds of poly((L)-lactic acid) microfibers using electrospinning and mechanical expansion: fabrication and bone regeneration. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials, 2010, 95B(1): 150–160Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Walser J, Stok K S, Caversaccio M D, et al. Direct electrospinning of 3D auricle-shaped scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Biofabrication, 2016, 8(2): 025007Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chen Z, Song Y, Zhang J, et al. Laminated electrospun nHA/PHBcomposite scaffolds mimicking bone extracellular matrix for bone tissue engineering. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2017, 72: 341–351Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Joshi M K, Tiwari A P, Pant H R, et al. In situ generation of cellulose nanocrystals in polycaprolactone nanofibers: Effects on crystallinity, mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and biomimetic mineralization. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2015, 7 (35): 19672–19683Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Scaffaro R, Maio A, Lopresti F, et al. Nanocarbons in electrospun polymeric nanomats for tissue engineering: A review. Polymers, 2017, 9(2): 76Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ghorbani F M, Kaffashi B, Shokrollahi P, et al. PCL/chitosan/Zndoped nHA electrospun nanocomposite scaffold promotes adipose derived stem cells adhesion and proliferation. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2015, 118: 133–142Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Maio A, et al. Electrospun PCL/GO-g-PEG structures: Processing-morphology-properties relationships. Composites. Part A, Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2017, 92: 97–107Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shao W, He J, Sang F, et al. Enhanced bone formation in electrospun poly(l-lactic-co-glycolic acid)-tussah silk fibroin ultrafine nanofiber scaffolds incorporated with graphene oxide. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2016, 62: 823–834Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Roy R, Kohles S S, Zaporojan V, et al. Analysis of bending behavior of native and engineered auricular and costal cartilage. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 2004, 68A(4): 597–602Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hejazi F, Mirzadeh H, Contessi N, et al. Novel class of collector in electrospinning device for the fabrication of 3D nanofibrous structure for large defect load-bearing tissue engineering application. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 2017, 105 (5): 1535–1548Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stocco T, Rodrigues B, Marciano F, et al. Design of a novel electrospinning setup for the fabrication of biomimetic scaffolds for meniscus tissue engineering applications. Materials Letters, 2017, 196: 221–224Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hejazi F, Mirzadeh H. Novel 3D scaffold with enhanced physical and cell response properties for bone tissue regeneration, fabricated by patterned electrospinning/electrospraying. Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine, 2016, 27(9): 143Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Joshi MK, Pant H R, Tiwari A P, et al. Multi-layered macroporous three-dimensional nanofibrous scaffold via a novel gas foaming technique. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 275: 79–88Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jiang J, Carlson M A, Teusink M J, et al. Expanding twodimensional electrospun nanofiber membranes in the third dimension by a modified gas-foaming technique. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2015, 1(10): 991–1001Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ng R, Zang R, Yang K K, et al. Three-dimensional fibrous scaffolds with microstructures and nanotextures for tissue engineering. RSC Advances, 2012, 2(27): 10110–10124Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wang X, Salick M R, Wang X, et al. Poly(-caprolactone) nanofibers with a self-induced nanohybrid shish-kebab structure mimicking collagen fibrils. Biomacromolecules, 2013, 14(10): 3557–3569Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jing X, Mi H Y, Wang X C, et al. Shish-kebab-structured poly(- caprolactone) nanofibers hierarchically decorated with chitosanpoly(- caprolactone) copolymers for bone tissue engineering. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2015, 7(12): 6955–6965Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Levy G N, Schindel R, Kruth J P. Rapid manufacturing and rapid tooling with layer manufacturing (LM) technologies, state of the art and future perspectives. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2003, 52(2): 589–609Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hull C W. US Patent, US4575330 A, 1986–08-08Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zhao S C, Zhu M, Zhang J H, et al. Three dimensionally printed mesoporous bioactive glass and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) composite scaffolds for bone regeneration. Journal of Materials Chemistry. B, Materials for Biology and Medicine, 2014, 2(36): 6106–6118Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gbureck U, Hölzel T, Klammert U, et al. Resorbable dicalcium phosphate bone substitutes prepared by 3D powder printing. Advanced Functional Materials, 2007, 17(18): 3940–3945Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Klammert U, Vorndran E, Reuther T, et al. Low temperature fabrication of magnesium phosphate cement scaffolds by 3D powder printing. Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine, 2010, 21(11): 2947–2953Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wang J L, Yang M Y, Zhu Y, et al. Phage nanofibers induce vascularized osteogenesis in 3D printed bone scaffolds. Advanced Materials, 2014, 26(29): 4961–4966Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zein I, Hutmacher DW, Tan K C, et al. Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials, 2002, 23(4): 1169–1185Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Guo T, Lembong J, Zhang L G, et al. Three-dimensional printing articular cartilage: Recapitulating the complexity of native tissue. Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2017, 23(3): 225–236Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mota C, Wang S Y, Puppi D, et al. Additive manufacturing of poly [(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxyhexanoate] scaffolds for engineered bone development. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 2017, 11(1): 175–186Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sears N A, Seshadri D R, Dhavalikar P S, et al. A review of threedimensional printing in tissue engineering. Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2016, 22(4): 298–310Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ma X, Qu X, Zhu W, et al. Deterministically patterned biomimetic human iPSC-derived hepatic model via rapid 3D bioprinting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(8): 2206–2211Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Fong E L S, Lamhamedi-Cherradi S E, Burdett E, et al. Modeling Ewing sarcoma tumors in vitro with 3D scaffolds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 110(16): 6500–6505Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Brama P A J, Holopainen J, van Weeren P R, et al. Effect of loading on the organization of the collagen fibril network in juvenile equine articular cartilage. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2009, 27(9): 1226–1234Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mandrycky C, Wang Z, Kim K, et al. 3D bioprinting for engineering complex tissues. Biotechnology Advances, 2016, 34 (4): 422–434Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mohammed M I, Badwal P S, Gibson I. Design and fabrication considerations for three dimensional scaffold structures. KnE Engineering, 2017, 2(2): 120–126Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Habib F N, Nikzad M, Masood S H, et al. Design and development of scaffolds for tissue engineering using three-dimensional printing for bio-based applications. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 2016, 3: 119–127Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mohanty S, Sanger K, Heiskanen A, et al. Fabrication of scalable tissue engineering scaffolds with dual-pore microarchitecture by combining 3D printing and particle leaching. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2016, 61: 180–189Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Reed S, Lau G, Delattre B, et al. Macro- and micro-designed chitosan-alginate scaffold architecture by three-dimensional printing and directional freezing. Biofabrication, 2016, 8(1): 015003Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Seleznev V, Prinz V Y. Hybrid 3D-2D printing for bone scaffolds fabrication. Nanotechnology, 2017, 28(6): 064004Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mancuso E, Alharbi N, Bretcanu O A, et al. Three-dimensional printing of porous load-bearing bioceramic scaffolds. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 2017, 231(6): 575–585Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Yang G H, Mun F, Kim G. Direct electrospinning writing for producing 3D hybrid constructs consisting of microfibers and macro-struts for tissue engineering. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 288: 648–658Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chen C, Zhao M, Zhang R, et al. Collagen/heparin sulfate scaffolds fabricated by a 3D bioprinter improved mechanical properties and neurological function after spinal cord injury in rats. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 2017, 105(5): 1324–1332Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zhang H F, Mao X Y, Du Z J, et al. Three dimensional printed macroporous polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for promoting bone formation in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 2016, 17 (1): 136–148Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Yang C, Wang X, Ma B, et al. 3D-printed bioactive Ca3SiO5 bone cement scaffolds with nano surface structure for bone regeneration. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2017, 9(7): 5757–5767Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zhang J H, Zhao S C, Zhu Y F, et al. Three-dimensional printing of strontium-containing mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for bone regeneration. Acta Biomaterialia, 2014, 10(5): 2269–2281Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Jakus A E, Secor E B, Rutz A L, et al. Three-dimensional printing of high-content graphene scaffolds for electronic and biomedical applications. ACS Nano, 2015, 9(4): 4636–4648Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Shao H, Yang X, He Y, et al. Bioactive glass-reinforced bioceramic ink writing scaffolds: Sintering, microstructure and mechanical behavior. Biofabrication, 2015, 7(3): 035010Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Murphy S V, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature Biotechnology, 2014, 32(8): 773–785Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wüst S, Müller R, Hofmann S. Controlled positioning of cells in biomaterials—Approaches towards 3D tissue printing. Journal of Functional Biomaterials, 2011, 2(4): 119–154Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Zhao P, Wang S, Ying J, et al. Non-destructive measurement of cavity pressure during injection molding process based on ultrasonic technology and Gaussian process. Polymer Testing, 2013, 32(8): 1436–1444Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Agrawal C M, Ray R B. Biodegradable polymeric scaffolds for musculoskeletal tissue engineering. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2001, 55(2): 141–150Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gomes M E, Ribeiro A S, Malafaya P B, et al. A new approach based on injection moulding to produce biodegradable starchbased polymeric scaffolds: Morphology, mechanical and degradation behaviour. Biomaterials, 2001, 22(9): 883–889Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Limongi T, Lizzul L, Giugni A, et al. Laboratory injection molder for the fabrication of polymeric porous poly-epsilon-caprolactone scaffolds for preliminary mesenchymal stem cells tissue engineering applications. Microelectronic Engineering, 2017, 175: 12–16Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Kramschuster A, Turng L S. An injection molding process for manufacturing highly porous and interconnected biodegradable polymer matrices for use as tissue engineering scaffolds. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials, 2010, 92B: 366–376Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Yin G Z, Zhang L W, Li Q F. A convenient method to fabricate porous cross-linked PCL membrane by using dual pore-forming agents. Materials Letters, 2016, 181: 208–211Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yin H M, Qian J, Zhang J, et al. Engineering porous poly(lactic acid) scaffolds with high mechanical performance via a solid state extrusion/porogen leaching approach. Polymers, 2016, 8(6): 213Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Peng X F, Mi H Y, Jing X, et al. Preparation of highly porous interconnected poly(lactic acid) scaffolds based on a novel dynamic elongational flow procedure. Materials & Design, 2016, 101: 285–293Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Wang X, Salick M R, Gao Y, et al. Interconnected porous poly(ε- caprolactone) tissue engineering scaffolds fabricated by microcellular injection molding. Journal of Cellular Plastics, 2016, 1–11 (in press)Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Mahdieh Z, Bagheri R, Eslami M, et al. Thermoplastic starch/ethylene vinyl alcohol/forsterite nanocomposite as a candidate material for bone tissue engineering. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2016, 69: 301–310Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Kuang T R, Chen F, Chang L Q, et al. Facile preparation of opencellular porous poly(L-lactic acid) scaffold by supercritical carbon dioxide foaming for potential tissue engineering applications. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2017, 307: 1017–1025Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Moghadam MZ, Hassanajili S, Esmaeilzadeh F, et al. Formation of porous HPCL/LPCL/HA scaffolds with supercritical CO2 gas foaming method. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2017, 69: 115–127Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Fanovich M, Ivanovic J, Zizovic I, et al. Functionalization of polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite scaffolds with Usnea lethariiformis extract by using supercritical CO2. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2016, 58: 204–212Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Zhang J, Liu H, Ding J X, et al. High-pressure compressionmolded porous resorbable polymer/hydroxyapatite composite scaffold for cranial bone regeneration. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2016, 2(9): 1471–1482Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Scaffaro R, Lopresti F, Botta L, et al. Mechanical behavior of polylactic acid/polycaprolactone porous layered functional composites. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2016, 98: 70–77Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Haibing Gu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Haoyang Mi
    • 3
  • Chengchen Rao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jianzhong Fu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lih-sheng Turng
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic SystemsZhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of 3D Printing Process and Equipment of Zhejiang ProvinceZhejiang UniversityZhejiangChina
  3. 3.Wisconsin Institute for DiscoveryUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations