The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair
Abstract
Critical-sized bone defect repair remains a substantial challenge in clinical settings and requires bone grafts or bone substitute materials. However, existing biomaterials often do not meet the clinical requirements of structural support, osteoinductive property, and controllable biodegradability. To treat large-scale bone defects, the development of three-dimensional (3D) porous scaffolds has received considerable focus within bone engineering. A variety of biomaterials and manufacturing methods, including 3D printing, have emerged to fabricate patient-specific bioactive scaffolds that possess controlled micro-architectures for bridging bone defects in complex configurations. During the last decade, with the development of the 3D printing industry, a large number of tissue-engineered scaffolds have been created for preclinical and clinical applications using novel materials and innovative technologies. Thus, this review provides a brief overview of current progress in existing biomaterials and tissue engineering scaffolds prepared by 3D printing technologies, with an emphasis on the material selection, scaffold design optimization, and their preclinical and clinical applications in the repair of critical-sized bone defects. Furthermore, it will elaborate on the current limitations and potential future prospects of 3D printing technology. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: 3D printing has emerged as a critical fabrication process for bone engineering due to its ability to control bulk geometry and internal structure of tissue scaffolds. The advancement of bioprinting methods and compatible ink materials for bone engineering have been a major focus to develop optimal 3D scaffolds for bone defect repair. Achieving a successful balance of cellular function, cellular viability, and mechanical integrity under load-bearing conditions is critical. Hybridization of natural and synthetic polymer-based materials is a promising approach to create novel tissue engineered scaffolds that combines the advantages of both materials and meets various requirements, including biological activity, mechanical strength, easy fabrication and controllable degradation. 3D printing is linked to the future of bone grafts to create on-demand patient-specific scaffolds.
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
Sydney Gladman, A., Matsumoto, E. A., Nuzzo, R. G., Mahadevan, L., & Lewis, J. A. (2016) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/nmat4544 · Cited by 3,027
On the mechanisms of biocompatibility
Williams, D. F. (2008) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023 · Cited by 2,772
Printing three-dimensional tissue analogues with decellularized extracellular matrix bioink
Pati, F., Jang, J., Ha, D.-H., Won Kim, S., Rhie, J.-W., Shim, J.-H., Kim, D.-H., & Cho, D.-W. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4935 · Cited by 1,904
Multimaterial 4D Printing with Tailorable Shape Memory Polymers
Ge, Q., Sakhaei, A. H., Lee, H., Dunn, C. K., Fang, N. X., & Dunn, M. L. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep31110 · Cited by 1,160
Direct 4D Printing Via Active Composite Materials
Ding, Z., Yuan, C., Peng, X., Wang, T., Qi, H. J., & Dunn, M. L. (2017) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602890 · Cited by 692
3D printed anatomical nerve regeneration pathways
Johnson, B. N., Lancaster, K. Z., Zhen, G., He, J., Gupta, M. K., Kong, Y. L., Engel, E. A., Krick, K. D., Ju, A., Meng, F., et al. (2015) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.201501760 · Cited by 293
Self-citationLee, K.-W., Wang, S., Fox, B. C., Ritman, E. L., Yaszemski, M. J., & Lu, L. (2007) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm060834v · Cited by 292
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
Arif, Z. U., Khalid, M. Y., Noroozi, R., Sadeghianmaryan, A., Jalalvand, M., & Hossain, M. (2022) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.07.140 · Cited by 395
Unraveling of Advances in 3D-Printed Polymer-Based Bone Scaffolds
Xu, Y., Zhang, F., Zhai, W., Cheng, S., Li, J., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym14030566 · Cited by 349
Recent advances in PLGA-based biomaterials for bone tissue regeneration
Jin, S., Xia, X., Huang, J., Yuan, C., Zuo, Y., Li, Y., & Li, J. (2021) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2021.03.067 · Cited by 295
Kumar, A., Kargozar, S., Baino, F., & Han, S. S. (2019) · Frontiers in Materials · doi:10.3389/fmats.2019.00313 · Cited by 189
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, L., Yang, G., Johnson, B. N., & Jia, X.
- Venue
- Acta Biomaterialia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 84
- Pages
- 16-33
- ISSN
- 1742-7061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901631637
- Cited by
- 865
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 21.42
- 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: Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.039
- The paper
- Zhang, L., Yang, G., Johnson, B. N., & Jia, X. (2019). Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair. Acta Biomaterialia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.039
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.