MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223510731 · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.824156

3D Bioprinted Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: State-Of-The-Art and Emerging Technologies

2022· review· en· W4223510731 on OpenAlexafffund
Zahra Yazdanpanah, James D. Johnston, David M. L. Cooper, Daniel Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsTissue engineering3D bioprintingBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treating large bone defects, known as critical-sized defects (CSDs), is challenging because they are not spontaneously healed by the patient’s body. Due to the limitations associated with conventional bone grafts, bone tissue engineering (BTE), based on three-dimensional (3D) bioprinted scaffolds, has emerged as a promising approach for bone reconstitution and treatment. Bioprinting technology allows for incorporation of living cells and/or growth factors into scaffolds aiming to mimic the structure and properties of the native bone. To date, a wide range of biomaterials (either natural or synthetic polymers), as well as various cells and growth factors, have been explored for use in scaffold bioprinting. However, a key challenge that remains is the fabrication of scaffolds that meet structure, mechanical, and osteoconductive requirements of native bone and support vascularization. In this review, we briefly present the latest developments and discoveries of CSD treatment by means of bioprinted scaffolds, with a focus on the biomaterials, cells, and growth factors for formulating bioinks and their bioprinting techniques. Promising state-of-the-art pathways or strategies recently developed for bioprinting bone scaffolds are highlighted, including the incorporation of bioactive ceramics to create composite scaffolds, the use of advanced bioprinting technologies ( e.g. , core/shell bioprinting) to form hybrid scaffolds or systems, as well as the rigorous design of scaffolds by taking into account of the influence of such parameters as scaffold pore geometry and porosity. We also review in-vitro assays and in-vivo models to track bone regeneration, followed by a discussion of current limitations associated with 3D bioprinting technologies for BTE. We conclude this review with emerging approaches in this field, including the development of gradient scaffolds, four-dimensional (4D) printing technology via smart materials, organoids, and cell aggregates/spheroids along with future avenues for related BTE.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations188
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Bioengineering and BiotechnologySame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207