Scaffolds for Cartilage Regeneration: To Use or Not to Use?

Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1249)


Joint cartilage has been a significant focus on the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) since its inception in the 1980s. Represented by only one cell type, cartilage has been a simple tissue that is thought to be straightforward to deal with. After three decades, engineering cartilage has proven to be anything but easy. With the demographic shift in the distribution of world population towards ageing, it is expected that there is a growing need for more effective options for joint restoration and repair. Despite the increasing understanding of the factors governing cartilage development, there is still a lot to do to bridge the gap from bench to bedside. Dedicated methods to regenerate reliable articular cartilage that would be equivalent to the original tissue are still lacking. The use of cells, scaffolds and signalling factors has always been central to the TERM. However, without denying the importance of cells and signalling factors, the question posed in this chapter is whether the answer would come from the methods to use or not to use scaffold for cartilage TERM. This paper presents some efforts in TERM area and proposes a solution that will transpire from the ongoing attempts to understand certain aspects of cartilage development, degeneration and regeneration. While an ideal formulation for cartilage regeneration has yet to be resolved, it is felt that scaffold is still needed for cartilage TERM for years to come.


Biomaterial Cartilage Chondrocytes Development Regeneration Regenerative medicine Scaffolds Tissue engineering 



The authors thanked the Ministry of Education (MOE) Malaysia Transdisciplinary Research Grant Scheme TRGS/1/2016/UIAM/02/8/2 (TRGS16-02-002-0002) under TRGS/1/2016/UIAM/02/8 programme and the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change (MESTECC, formerly known as MOSTI) Malaysia Science Fund (SF14-012-0062/06-01-08-SF0238); the Kulliyyah of Allied Health Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), Kuantan Campus, Pahang, Malaysia; and Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Research Team, IIUM, for their support.


  1. 1.
    WHO (2018) The WHO register. Accessed 11 Dec 2019
  2. 2.
    Benders KE, Terpstra ML, Levato R et al (2019) Fabrication of decellularized cartilage-derived matrix scaffolds. JoVE 143:e58656Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hazwani A, Sha’Ban M, Azhim A (2019) Characterization and in vivo study of decellularized aortic scaffolds using closed sonication system. Organogenesis 15(4):120–136PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiggenhauser PS, Schwarz S, Koerber L et al (2019) Addition of decellularized extracellular matrix of porcine nasal cartilage improves cartilage regenerative capacities of PCL-based scaffolds in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med 30(11):121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yusof F, Sha’ban M, Azhim A (2019) Development of decellularized meniscus using closed sonication treatment system: potential scaffolds for orthopedics tissue engineering applications. Int Nanomed 14:5491–5502Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmad M, Manzoor K, Ikram S (2019) Chitosan nanocomposites for bone and cartilage regeneration. In: Jamia MI (ed) Applications of nanocomposite materials in dentistry. Woodhead Publishing, New Delhi, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Izzo D, Palazzo B, Scalera F et al (2019) Chitosan scaffolds for cartilage regeneration: influence of different ionic crosslinkers on biomaterial properties. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 68(15):936–945Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roffi A, Kon E, Perdisa F (2019) A composite chitosan-reinforced scaffold fails to provide osteochondral regeneration. Int J Mol Sci 20(9):2227PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang K, Li J, Li Z et al (2019) Chondrogenic progenitor cells exhibit superiority over mesenchymal stem cells and chondrocytes in platelet-rich plasma scaffold-based cartilage regeneration. Am J Sports Med 47(9):2200–2215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen K, Li X, Li N et al (2019) Spontaneously formed spheroids from mouse compact bone-derived cells retain highly potent stem cells with enhanced differentiation capability. Stem Cells 2019:1–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen W, Xu Y, Liu Y, Wang Z et al (2019) Three-dimensional printed electrospun fiber-based scaffold for cartilage regeneration. Mater Des 179:1–13Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li J, Chen G, Xu X et al (2019a) Advances of injectable hydrogel-based scaffolds for cartilage regeneration. Regen Biomater 6(3):129–140PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rogan H, Ilagan F, Yang F (2019) Comparing single cell versus pellet encapsulation of mesenchymal stem cells in three-dimensional hydrogels for cartilage regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A 25:1–27Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Pascale C, Marcello E, Getting SJ et al (2019) Populated collagen hydrogel and polyhydroxyalkanoate composites: novel matrices for cartilage repair and regeneration? Osteoarthr Cartil 27:S432–S433Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baena JM, Jiménez G, López-Ruiz E, Antich C et al (2019) Volume-by-volume bioprinting of chondrocytes-alginate bioinks in high-temperature thermoplastic scaffolds for cartilage regeneration. Exp Biol Med 244(1):13–21Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farokhi M, Jonidi Shariatzadeh F, Solouk A (2019) Alginate based scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering: a review. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 69:1–18Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farokhi M, Mottaghitalab F, Fatahi Y et al (2019) Silk fibroin scaffolds for common cartilage injuries: possibilities for future clinical applications. Eur Polym J 115:251–267Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin H, Beck AM, Shimomura K (2019) Optimization of photocrosslinked gelatin/hyaluronic acid hybrid scaffold for the repair of cartilage defect. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2019:1–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li J, Yao Q, Xu Y (2019b) Lithium chloride-releasing 3D printed scaffold for enhanced cartilage regeneration. Med Sci Monit 25:4041PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park IS, Jin RL, Oh HJ et al (2019) Sizable scaffold-free tissue-engineered articular cartilage construct for cartilage defect repair. Artif Organs 43(3):278–287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sivadas VP, Dhawan S, Babu J (2019) Glutamic acid-based dendritic peptides for scaffold-free cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 99:196–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Moor L, Beyls E, Declercq H (2019) Scaffold free microtissue formation for enhanced cartilage repair. Ann Biomed Eng 48:1–14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aguilar IN, Olivos DJ III, Brinker A et al (2019) Scaffold-free bioprinting of mesenchymal stem cells using the Regenova printer: spheroid characterization and osteogenic differentiation. Bioprinting 15:e00050PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Breathwaite EK, Weaver JR, Murchison AC et al (2019) Scaffold-free bioprinted osteogenic and chondrogenic systems to model osteochondral physiology. Biomed Mater 14(6):065010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lu Y, Zhang W, Wang J et al (2019) Recent advances in cell sheet technology for bone and cartilage regeneration: from preparation to application. Int J Oral Sci 11(2):1–13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martini FH, Nath JL, Bartholomew EF (2018) Fundamentals of anatomy & physiology, 11th edn. Pearson Education, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tortora GJ, Derrickson B (2017) Principles of human anatomy & physiology, 15th edn. Wiley, MiltonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saladin KS, Gan CA, Cushman HN (2018) Anatomy & physiology: the unity of form and function, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shier D, Butler J, Lewis R (2016) Hole’s human anatomy & physiology, 14th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muriel R, Birgit R, William MK (2019) Cellular senescence in development, regeneration and disease. Development 146:dev151837Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myohara M (2004) Differential tissue development during embryogenesis and regeneration in an annelid. Dev Dyn 231:349–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kuhn LT, Liu Y, Boyd NL et al (2014) Developmental-like bone regeneration by human embryonic stem cell-derived mesenchymal cells. Tissue Eng Part A 20(1–2):365–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tetsuya E, Susan VB, David M (2004) A stepwise model system for limb regeneration. Dev Biol 270(1):135–145Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Angela YC, Vegard FS, Stefanos T et al (2019) Measuring population ageing: an analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet Public Health 4(3):e159–e167Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Theo V, Abraham DF, Mohsen N et al (2012) Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 380(9859):2163–2196Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malaysia health technology assessment section (MaHTAS) (2013) Quick reference (QR): management of osteoarthritis, 2nd edn. Ministry of Health (MOH), MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS) (2013) Clinical practice guidelines (CPG): management of osteoarthritis, 2nd edn. Ministry of Health (MOH), MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Francis SL, Di Bella C, Wallace GG (2018) Cartilage tissue engineering using stem cells and bioprinting technology–barriers to clinical translation. Front Surg 5:70PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xue K, Zhang X, Gao Z (2019) Cartilage progenitor cells combined with PHBV in cartilage tissue engineering. J Transl Med 17(1):104PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Catacchio I, Berardi S, Reale A et al (2013) Evidence for bone marrow adult stem cell plasticity. In: Prancla R(ed) properties, molecular mechanisms, negative aspects, and clinical applications of hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells transdifferentiation. Stem Cells Int 2013:1–11Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Md Nazir N, Zulkifly AH, Khalid KA et al (2019) Matrix production in chondrocytes transfected with sex determining region Y-box 9 and telomerase reverse transcriptase genes: an in vitro evaluation from monolayer culture to three-dimensional culture. Tissue Eng Regen Med 16:285PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tahir AH, Azhim A, Sha’ban M et al (2017) Chondrocytes-induced SOX5/6/9 and TERT genes for articular cartilage tissue engineering: HYPE or Hope? Trans Persatuan Genetik Malaysia 7:151–160Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ahmad R, Muhammad A, Abdulahi H et al (2017) The application of gene transfer technology in articular cartilage tissue engineering: an insight. TPGM 7:211–216Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mohamed Amin MAI, Azhim A, Mohamed Sideek MA et al (2017) Current trends in gene-enhanced tissue engineering for articular cartilage regeneration in the animal model. Trans Persatuan Genetik Malaysia (TPGM) 7:201–210Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Munirah S, Zainul Ibrahim Z, Rozlin AR et al (2014) Exploring the islamic perspective on tissue engineering principles and practice. Comm Publ Ethics 4(2):29–40Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nazir NM, Sha’ban M (2018) Overview of safety and efficacy of non-viral gene transfer in cartilage tissue engineering from the worldview of Islam. Int Med J Malaysia 17:115–123Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Willerth SM, Sakiyama-Elbert SE (2008) Combining stem cells and biomaterial scaffolds for constructing tissues and cell delivery. StemBook, Washington UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tahir AHMA, Amin MAIM, Azhim A (2018) Evaluation of cartilaginous extracellular matrix production in in vitro “cell-scaffold” construct. In: 2018 IEEE-EMBS Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES), pp 500–504Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Munirah S, Samsudin OC, Chen HC et al (2007) Articular cartilage restoration in load-bearing osteochondral defects by autologous chondrocytes-fibrin constructs implantation: an experimental study in sheep. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 89B:1099–1109Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hazwani A, Sha’ban M, Azhim A (2017) Inflammatory response of bioscaffolds decellularized by sonication treatment. In: International conference for innovation in biomedical engineering and life sciences 2017, pp 183–185Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mohamed Amin MAI, Tahir AHMA, Azhim A et al (2018) Physical properties and biocompatibility of 3D hybrid PLGA based scaffolds. In: 2018 IEEE-EMBS Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES), pp 480–484Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Martín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M et al (2018) Google scholar, web of science, and scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informet 12(4):1160–1177Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ovsianikov A, Khademhosseini A, Mironov V (2018) The synergy of scaffold-based and scaffold-free tissue engineering strategies. Trends Biotechnol 36(4):348–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    He D, Zhao AS, Su H et al (2019) An injectable scaffold based on temperature-responsive hydrogel and factor-loaded nanoparticles for application in vascularization in tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 107(A):2123–2134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kelly DC, Raftery RM, Curtin CM et al (2019) Scaffold-based delivery of nucleic acid therapeutics for enhanced bone and cartilage repair. J Orthop Res 37:1671–1680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wen YT, Dai NT, Hsu SH (2019) Biodegradable water-based polyurethane scaffolds with a sequential release function for cell-free cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 88:301–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kobayashi J, Kikuchi A, Aoyagi T (2019) Cell sheet tissue engineering: cell sheet preparation, harvesting/manipulation, and transplantation. J Biomed Mater Res A 107(5):955–967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Takahashi H, Okano T (2015) Cell sheet-based tissue engineering for organizing anisotropic TEMPs produced using microfabricated thermoresponsive substrates. Adv Healthc Mater 4(16):2388–2407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Antunes J, Gaspar VM, Ferreira L et al (2019) In-air production of 3D co-culture tumor spheroid hydrogels for expedited drug screening. Acta Biomater 94:392–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Akkouch A, Yu Y, Ozbolat IT (2015) Microfabrication of scaffold-free tissue strands for three-dimensional tissue engineering. Biofabrication 7(3):031002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yu Y, Moncal KK, Li J et al (2016) Three-dimensional bioprinting using self-assembling scalable scaffold-free “tissue strands” as a new bioink. Sci Rep 6(1):28714PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yamato M, Okano T (2004) Cell sheet engineering. Mater Today 7(5):42–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Rehabilitation Sciences, Kulliyyah of Allied Health SciencesInternational Islamic University MalaysiaKuantanMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Science, Kulliyyah of Allied Health SciencesInternational Islamic University MalaysiaKuantanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations