The DOI matches its Crossref record; 266 of the 266 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Current state of fabrication technologies and materials for bone tissue engineering
Abstract
A range of traditional and free-form fabrication technologies have been investigated and, in numerous occasions, commercialized for use in the field of regenerative tissue engineering (TE). The demand for technologies capable of treating bone defects inherently difficult to repair has been on the rise. This quest, accompanied by the advent of functionally tailored, biocompatible, and biodegradable materials, has garnered an enormous research interest in bone TE. As a result, different materials and fabrication methods have been investigated towards this end, leading to a deeper understanding of the geometrical, mechanical and biological requirements associated with bone scaffolds. As our understanding of the scaffold requirements expands, so do the capability requirements of the fabrication processes. The goal of this review is to provide a broad examination of existing scaffold fabrication processes and highlight future trends in their development. To appreciate the clinical requirements of bone scaffolds, a brief review of the biological process by which bone regenerates itself is presented first. This is followed by a summary and comparisons of commonly used implant techniques to highlight the advantages of TE-based approaches over traditional grafting methods. A detailed discussion on the clinical and mechanical requirements of bone scaffolds then follows. The remainder of the manuscript is dedicated to current scaffold fabrication methods, their unique capabilities and perceived shortcomings. The range of biomaterials employed in each fabrication method is summarized. Selected traditional and non-traditional fabrication methods are discussed with a highlight on their future potential from the authors' perspective. This study is motivated by the rapidly growing demand for effective scaffold fabrication processes capable of economically producing constructs with intricate and precisely controlled internal and external architectures. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The manuscript summarizes the current state of fabrication technologies and materials used for creating scaffolds in bone tissue engineering applications. A comprehensive analysis of different fabrication methods (traditional and free-form) were summarized in this review paper, with emphasis on recent developments in the field. The fabrication techniques suitable for creating scaffolds for tissue engineering was particularly targeted and their use in bone tissue engineering were articulated. Along with the fabrication techniques, we emphasized the choice of materials in these processes. Considering the limitations of each process, we highlighted the materials and the material properties critical in that particular process and provided a brief rational for the choice of the materials. The functional performance for bone tissue engineering are summarized for different fabrication processes and the choice of biomaterials. Finally, we provide a perspective on the future of the field, highlighting the knowledge gaps and promising avenues in pursuit of effective scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. This extensive review of the field will provide research community with a reference source for current approaches to scaffold preparation. We hope to encourage the researchers to generate next generation biomaterials to be used in these fabrication processes. By providing both advantages and disadvantage of each fabrication method in detail, new fabrication techniques might be devised that will overcome the limitations of the current approaches. These studies should facilitate the efforts of researchers interested in generating ideal scaffolds, and should have applications beyond the repair of bone tissue.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Xu, S., Xu, S., Zhou, P., Cheng, X., Xie, Y., Liang, C., & Li, C. (2013) · International Journal of Nanomedicine · doi:10.2147/ijn.s50685 · Cited by 160
RetractedScaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage
Hutmacher, D. W. (2000) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00121-6 · Cited by 4,994
Biodegradable polymers as biomaterials
Nair, L. S., & Laurencin, C. T. (2007) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.017 · Cited by 4,416
Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
Rezwan, K., Chen, Q. Z., Blaker, J. J., & Boccaccini, A. R. (2006) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.039 · Cited by 3,839
Polymers for 3D Printing and Customized Additive Manufacturing
Ligon, S. C., Liska, R., Stampfl, J., Gurr, M., & Mülhaupt, R. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074 · Cited by 3,741
A Review of Additive Manufacturing
Wong, K. V., & Hernandez, A. (2012) · ISRN Mechanical Engineering · doi:10.5402/2012/208760 · Cited by 2,555
Bending instability of electrically charged liquid jets of polymer solutions in electrospinning
Reneker, D. H., Yarin, A. L., Fong, H., & Koombhongse, S. (2000) · Journal of Applied Physics · doi:10.1063/1.373532 · Cited by 2,462
A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering
Melchels, F. P. W., Feijen, J., & Grijpma, D. W. (2010) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.050 · Cited by 2,457
Wang, X., Xu, S., Zhou, S., Xu, W., Leary, M., Choong, P., Qian, M., Brandt, M., & Xie, Y. M. (2016) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.012 · Cited by 2,121
Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing
Bose, S., Vahabzadeh, S., & Bandyopadhyay, A. (2013) · Materials Today · doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017 · Cited by 1,866
Cited by
Normal Bone Anatomy and Physiology
Clarke, B. (2008) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.04151206 · Cited by 2,192
Scaffold Fabrication Technologies and Structure/Function Properties in Bone Tissue Engineering
Collins, M. N., Ren, G., Young, K., Pina, S., Reis, R. L., & Oliveira, J. M. (2021) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.202010609 · Cited by 867
Effect of the nano/microscale structure of biomaterial scaffolds on bone regeneration
Zhu, L., Luo, D., & Liu, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Oral Science · doi:10.1038/s41368-020-0073-y · Cited by 458
Wang, R., Shi, M., Xu, F., Qiu, Y., Zhang, P., Shen, K., Zhao, Q., Yu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18267-1 · Cited by 441
Fabrication of Biomedical Scaffolds Using Biodegradable Polymers.
Kirillova, A., Yeazel, T. R., Asheghali, D., Petersen, S. R., Dort, S., Gall, K., & Becker, M. L. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01200 · Cited by 368
Metadata
- Authors
- Wubneh, A., Tsekoura, E. K., Ayranci, C., & Uludağ, H.
- Venue
- Acta Biomaterialia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 80
- Pages
- 1-30
- ISSN
- 1742-7061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2893267824
- Cited by
- 584
- References
- 266
- FWCI
- 16.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current state of fabrication technologies and materials for bone tissue engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.031
- The paper
- Wubneh, A., Tsekoura, E. K., Ayranci, C., & Uludağ, H. (2018). Current state of fabrication technologies and materials for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomaterialia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.031
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.