Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

3D Printing for Bone-Cartilage Interface Regeneration

Xu J., Ji J., Jiao J., Zheng L., Hong Q., Tang H.

Narrative Review on Cartilage Damage, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
35237582
PMCID
PMC8882993
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2022.828921
Citations
20

Abstract (original English)

Due to the vasculature defects and/or the avascular nature of cartilage, as well as the complex gradients for bone-cartilage interface regeneration and the layered zonal architecture, self-repair of cartilage and subchondral bone is challenging. Currently, the primary osteochondral defect treatment strategies, including artificial joint replacement and autologous and allogeneic bone graft, are limited by their ability to simply repair, rather than induce regeneration of tissues. Meanwhile, over the past two decades, three-dimension (3D) printing technology has achieved admirable advancements in bone and cartilage reconstruction, providing a new strategy for restoring joint function. The advantages of 3D printing hybrid materials include rapid and accurate molding, as well as personalized therapy. However, certain challenges also exist. For instance, 3D printing technology for osteochondral reconstruction must simulate the histological structure of cartilage and subchondral bone, thus, it is necessary to determine the optimal bioink concentrations to maintain mechanical strength and cell viability, while also identifying biomaterials with dual bioactivities capable of simultaneously regenerating cartilage. The study showed that the regeneration of bone-cartilage interface is crucial for the repair of osteochondral defect. In this review, we focus on the significant progress and

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research