Systematic review on the application of 3D‐bioprinting technology in orthoregeneration: current achievements and open challenges

Abstract

Abstract Background Joint degeneration and large or complex bone defects are a significant source of morbidity and diminished quality of life worldwide. There is an unmet need for a functional implant with near‐native biomechanical properties. The potential for their generation using 3D bioprinting (3DBP)‐based tissue engineering methods was assessed. We systematically reviewed the current state of 3DBP in orthoregeneration. Methods This review was performed using PubMed and Web of Science. Primary research articles reporting 3DBP of cartilage, bone, vasculature, and their osteochondral and vascular bone composites were considered. Full text English articles were analyzed. Results Over 1300 studies were retrieved, after removing duplicates, 1046 studies remained. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 114 articles were analyzed fully. Bioink material types and combinations were tallied. Cell types and testing methods were also analyzed. Nearly all papers determined the effect of 3DBP on cell survival. Bioink material physical characterization using gelation and rheology, and construct biomechanics were performed. In vitro testing methods assessed biochemistry, markers of extracellular matrix production and/or cell differentiation into respective lineages. In vivo proof‐of‐concept studies included full‐thickness bone and joint defects as well as subcutaneous implantation in rodents followed by histological and µCT analyses to demonstrate implant growth and integration into surrounding native tissues. Conclusions Despite its relative infancy, 3DBP is making an impact in joint and bone engineering. Several groups have demonstrated preclinical efficacy of mechanically robust constructs which integrate into articular joint defects in small animals. However, notable obstacles remain. Notably, researchers encountered pitfalls in scaling up constructs and establishing implant function and viability in long term animal models. Further, to translate from the laboratory to the clinic, standardized quality control metrics such as construct stiffness and graft integration metrics should be established with investigator consensus. While there is much work to be done, 3DBP implants have great potential to treat degenerative joint diseases and provide benefit to patients globally.

Keywords

• 3D bioprinted joint
• 3D bioprinting orthoregeneration
• Bioprinted cartilage
• Bioprinted bone
• Bioprinted vasculature
• Bioprinted osteochondral implant