FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Adv Healthc Mater / Orthotopic Bone Regeneration within 3D Printed Bioceramic Sc...
Advanced healthcare materials2020; 9(10); e1901807; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201901807

Orthotopic Bone Regeneration within 3D Printed Bioceramic Scaffolds with Region-Dependent Porosity Gradients in an Equine Model.

Abstract: The clinical translation of three-dimensionally printed bioceramic scaffolds with tailored architectures holds great promise toward the regeneration of bone to heal critical-size defects. Herein, the long-term in vivo performance of printed hydrogel-ceramic composites made of methacrylated-oligocaprolactone-poloxamer and low-temperature self-setting calcium-phosphates is assessed in a large animal model. Scaffolds printed with different internal architectures, displaying either a designed porosity gradient or a constant pore distribution, are implanted in equine tuber coxae critical size defects. Bone ingrowth is challenged and facilitated only from one direction via encasing the bioceramic in a polycaprolactone shell. After 7 months, total new bone volume and scaffold degradation are significantly greater in structures with constant porosity. Interestingly, gradient scaffolds show lower extent of remodeling and regeneration even in areas having the same porosity as the constant scaffolds. Low regeneration in distal regions from the interface with native bone impairs ossification in proximal regions of the construct, suggesting that anisotropic architectures modulate the cross-talk between distant cells within critical-size defects. The study provides key information on how engineered architectural patterns impact osteoregeneration in vivo, and also indicates the equine tuber coxae as promising orthotopic model for studying materials stimulating bone formation.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-04-23 PubMed ID: 32324336PubMed Central: PMC7116206DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201901807Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research explores the use of three-dimensionally printed bioceramic scaffolds to regenerate bone to heal significant defects. It compares the effectiveness of scaffolds with different internal structures in an equine model over a period of 7 months.

Objective

The study aimed to compare the bone regeneration properties of two types of 3D printed scaffolds, one with constant porosity and the other with a porosity gradient. The use of these scaffolds were tested in equine bone defect models to understand the most suitable architecture for fostering bone regeneration.

Materials and Methods

  • The hydrogel-ceramic composites used for creating the scaffolds were made from methacrylated-oligocaprolactone-poloxamer and low-temperature self-setting calcium-phosphates.
  • Two types of scaffolds were printed: one with a designed gradient of porosity (variable hole sizes) and the other with a consistent distribution of pores.
  • The scaffolds were implanted in subjects with defects in the equine tuber coxae bone. Bone growth was directed from one side by encasing the bioceramic scaffold in a polycaprolactone shell, creating a controlled environment for bone growth.

Results

  • After 7 months, it was found that scaffolds with a constant porosity resulted in significantly more bone volume and scaffold degradation than gradient scaffolds.
  • Interestingly, even areas of gradient scaffolds with porosity similar to the constant scaffolds showed lesser remodeling and regeneration.
  • The study also found an apparent relation between the level of bone regeneration in distant regions of the scaffolds and their proximity to the interface with native bone.

Conclusion and Future Direction

  • The study concluded that scaffold architectural patterns have a significant impact on the process of bone regeneration. Organs with constant porosity seem to be more beneficial for bone volume growth than those with gradient porosity.
  • This research indicates that anisotropic architectures impact cell activity across critical-size defects, affecting the overall regrowth rate of bone.
  • The study also deemed the equine tuber coxae a promising model for researching materials encouraging bone formation.

Cite This Article

APA
Diloksumpan P, Bolaños RV, Cokelaere S, Pouran B, de Grauw J, van Rijen M, van Weeren R, Levato R, Malda J. (2020). Orthotopic Bone Regeneration within 3D Printed Bioceramic Scaffolds with Region-Dependent Porosity Gradients in an Equine Model. Adv Healthc Mater, 9(10), e1901807. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201901807

Publication

Advanced healthcare materials
ISSN: 2192-2659
NlmUniqueID: 101581613
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 9
Issue: 10
Pages: e1901807

Researcher Affiliations

Diloksumpan, Paweena
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, Utrecht, 3584 CL, The Netherlands.
Bolaños, Rafael Vindas
  • Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad Nacional Costa Rica, Barreal de Heredia, Heredia, Lagunilla, 86-3000, Costa Rica.
Cokelaere, Stefan
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, Utrecht, 3584 CL, The Netherlands.
Pouran, Behdad
  • Department of Orthopaedics and Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
de Grauw, Janny
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, Utrecht, 3584 CL, The Netherlands.
van Rijen, Mattie
  • Department of Orthopaedics and Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
van Weeren, René
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, Utrecht, 3584 CL, The Netherlands.
Levato, Riccardo
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, Utrecht, 3584 CL, The Netherlands.
  • Department of Orthopaedics and Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Malda, Jos
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, Utrecht, 3584 CL, The Netherlands.
  • Department of Orthopaedics and Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Bone Regeneration
  • Horses
  • Osteogenesis
  • Porosity
  • Printing, Three-Dimensional
  • Tissue Scaffolds

Grant Funding

  • 647426 / European Research Council

Conflict of Interest Statement

. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 41 references
  1. Li JJ, Ebied M, Xu J, Zreiqat H. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2018;7 1701061.
  2. Samavedi S, Whittington AR, Goldstein AS. Calcium phosphate ceramics in bone tissue engineering: a review of properties and their influence on cell behavior.. Acta Biomater 2013 Sep;9(9):8037-45.
    pubmed: 23791671doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.06.014google scholar: lookup
  3. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.. Biomaterials 2005 Sep;26(27):5474-91.
    pubmed: 15860204doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002google scholar: lookup
  4. Loh QL, Choong C. Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size.. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2013 Dec;19(6):485-502.
    pmc: PMC3826579pubmed: 23672709doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0437google scholar: lookup
  5. Ratner BD. A pore way to heal and regenerate: 21st century thinking on biocompatibility.. Regen Biomater 2016 Jun;3(2):107-10.
    pmc: PMC4817322pubmed: 27047676doi: 10.1093/rb/rbw006google scholar: lookup
  6. Serra IR, Fradique R, Vallejo MC, Correia TR, Miguel SP, Correia IJ. Production and characterization of chitosan/gelatin/β-TCP scaffolds for improved bone tissue regeneration.. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2015 Oct;55:592-604.
    pubmed: 26117793doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.05.072google scholar: lookup
  7. Di Luca A, Lorenzo-Moldero I, Mota C, Lepedda A, Auhl D, Van Blitterswijk C, Moroni L. Tuning Cell Differentiation into a 3D Scaffold Presenting a Pore Shape Gradient for Osteochondral Regeneration.. Adv Healthc Mater 2016 Jul;5(14):1753-63.
    pubmed: 27109461doi: 10.1002/adhm.201600083google scholar: lookup
  8. Cai S, Xi J, Chua CK. A novel bone scaffold design approach based on shape function and all-hexahedral mesh refinement.. Methods Mol Biol 2012;868:45-55.
    pubmed: 22692603doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-764-4_3google scholar: lookup
  9. Yin S, Zhang W, Zhang Z, Jiang X. Adv Healthcare Mater. 2019;8 1801433.
  10. Perez RA, Ginebra MP. Injectable collagen/α-tricalcium phosphate cement: collagen-mineral phase interactions and cell response.. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2013 Feb;24(2):381-93.
    pubmed: 23104087doi: 10.1007/s10856-012-4799-8google scholar: lookup
  11. Groll J, Burdick JA, Cho DW, Derby B, Gelinsky M, Heil-shorn SC, Jüngst T, Malda J, Mironov VA, Nakayama K, Ovsianikov A, et al. Biofabrication. 2018;11 013001.
  12. Ahlfeld T, Doberenz F, Kilian D, Vater C, Korn P, Lauer G, Lode A, Gelinsky M. Biofabrication. 2018;10 045002.
  13. Akkineni AR, Luo Y, Schumacher M, Nies B, Lode A, Gelinsky M. 3D plotting of growth factor loaded calcium phosphate cement scaffolds.. Acta Biomater 2015 Nov;27:264-274.
    pubmed: 26318366doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.08.036google scholar: lookup
  14. Barba A, Maazouz Y, Diez-Escudero A, Rappe K, Espanol M, Montufar EB, Öhman-Mägi C, Persson C, Fontecha P, Manzanares MC, Franch J, Ginebra MP. Osteogenesis by foamed and 3D-printed nanostructured calcium phosphate scaffolds: Effect of pore architecture.. Acta Biomater 2018 Oct 1;79:135-147.
    pubmed: 30195084doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.003google scholar: lookup
  15. Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review.. Eur Cell Mater 2007 Mar 2;13:1-10.
    pubmed: 17334975doi: 10.22203/ecm.v013a01google scholar: lookup
  16. Moran CJ, Ramesh A, Brama PAJ, O’Byrne JM, O’Brien FJ, Levingstone TJ. J Experiment Orthopaed. 2016;3:1.
  17. Gyles C. One Medicine, One Health, One World.. Can Vet J 2016 Apr;57(4):345-6.
    pmc: PMC4790223pubmed: 27041751
  18. Cope PJ, Ourradi K, Li Y, Sharif M. Models of osteoarthritis: the good, the bad and the promising.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019 Feb;27(2):230-239.
    pmc: PMC6350005pubmed: 30391394doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.09.016google scholar: lookup
  19. Kuyinu EL, Narayanan G, Nair LS, Laurencin CT. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;19:3.
  20. Williams RB, Harkins LS, Hammond CJ, Wood JL. Racehorse injuries, clinical problems and fatalities recorded on British racecourses from flat racing and National Hunt racing during 1996, 1997 and 1998.. Equine Vet J 2001 Sep;33(5):478-86.
    pubmed: 11558743doi: 10.2746/042516401776254808google scholar: lookup
  21. Bigham-Sadegh A, Oryan A. Selection of animal models for pre-clinical strategies in evaluating the fracture healing, bone graft substitutes and bone tissue regeneration and engineering.. Connect Tissue Res 2015 Jun;56(3):175-94.
    pubmed: 25803622doi: 10.3109/03008207.2015.1027341google scholar: lookup
  22. Wright IM. Equine Veterinary Education. 2017;29:391.
  23. Termine JD, Kleinman HK, Whitson SW, Conn KM, McGarvey ML, Martin GR. Osteonectin, a bone-specific protein linking mineral to collagen.. Cell 1981 Oct;26(1 Pt 1):99-105.
    pubmed: 7034958doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(81)90037-4google scholar: lookup
  24. Melchels FPW, Blokzijl MM, Levato R, Peifier QC, de Rui-jter M, Hennink WE, Vermonden T, Malda J. Biofabrication. 2016;8 035004.
  25. Rosset EM, Bradshaw AD. SPARC/osteonectin in mineralized tissue.. Matrix Biol 2016 May-Jul;52-54:78-87.
    pmc: PMC5327628pubmed: 26851678doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2016.02.001google scholar: lookup
  26. Gehron Robey P. Chapter 17. Noncollagenous Bone Matrix Proteins 3. Academic; San Diego, USA: 2008. p. 335.
  27. Hu J, Zhou Y, Huang L, Liu J, Lu H. Effect of nano-hydroxyapatite coating on the osteoinductivity of porous biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics.. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014 Apr 1;15:114.
    pmc: PMC3994218pubmed: 24690170doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-114google scholar: lookup
  28. Barba A, Diez-Escudero A, Maazouz Y, Rappe K, Espanol M, Montufar EB, Bonany M, Sadowska JM, Guillem-Marti J, Öhman-Mägi C, Persson C, et al. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9 41722.
  29. Marrella A, Lee TY, Lee DH, Karuthedom S, Syla D, Chawla A, Khademhosseini A, Jang HL. Engineering vascularized and innervated bone biomaterials for improved skeletal tissue regeneration.. Mater Today (Kidlington) 2018 May;21(4):362-376.
    pmc: PMC6082025pubmed: 30100812doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2017.10.005google scholar: lookup
  30. Yamada M, Shiota M, Yamashita Y, Kasugai S. Histological and histomorphometrical comparative study of the degradation and osteoconductive characteristics of alpha- and beta-tricalcium phosphate in block grafts.. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007 Jul;82(1):139-48.
    pubmed: 17106891doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30715google scholar: lookup
  31. García JR, García AJ. Biomaterial-mediated strategies targeting vascularization for bone repair.. Drug Deliv Transl Res 2016 Apr;6(2):77-95.
    pmc: PMC4662653pubmed: 26014967doi: 10.1007/s13346-015-0236-0google scholar: lookup
  32. Scaglione S, Ilengo C, Fato M, Quarto R. Hydroxyapatite-coated polycaprolacton wide mesh as a model of open structure for bone regeneration.. Tissue Eng Part A 2009 Jan;15(1):155-63.
    pubmed: 18657026doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0410google scholar: lookup
  33. Filipowska J, Tomaszewski KA, Niedźwiedzki Ł, Walocha JA, Niedźwiedzki T. The role of vasculature in bone development, regeneration and proper systemic functioning.. Angiogenesis 2017 Aug;20(3):291-302.
    pmc: PMC5511612pubmed: 28194536doi: 10.1007/s10456-017-9541-1google scholar: lookup
  34. Malhotra A, Habibovic P. Calcium Phosphates and Angiogenesis: Implications and Advances for Bone Regeneration.. Trends Biotechnol 2016 Dec;34(12):983-992.
    pubmed: 27481474doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.07.005google scholar: lookup
  35. Muschler GF, Raut VP, Patterson TE, Wenke JC, Hollinger JO. The design and use of animal models for translational research in bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010 Feb;16(1):123-45.
    pubmed: 19891542doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0658google scholar: lookup
  36. Tsuzuki N, Otsuka K, Seo J, Yamada K, Haneda S, Furuoka H, Tabata Y, Sasaki N. In vivo osteoinductivity of gelatin β-tri-calcium phosphate sponge and bone morphogenetic protein-2 on an equine third metacarpal bone defect.. Res Vet Sci 2012 Oct;93(2):1021-5.
    pubmed: 22280550doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.12.002google scholar: lookup
  37. Guhad F. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2005;44:58.
  38. Loozen LD, van der Helm YJ, Öner FC, Dhert WJ, Kruyt MC, Alblas J. Bone morphogenetic protein-2 nonviral gene therapy in a goat iliac crest model for bone formation.. Tissue Eng Part A 2015 May;21(9-10):1672-9.
    pubmed: 25719212doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0593google scholar: lookup
  39. Diloksumpan P, de Ruijter M, Castilho M, Gburech U, Vermon-den T, van Weeren PR, Malda J, Levato R. Biofabrication. 2020;12 025014.
  40. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez JY, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis.. Nat Methods 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82.
    pmc: PMC3855844pubmed: 22743772doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019google scholar: lookup
  41. Doube M, Kłosowski MM, Arganda-Carreras I, Cordelières FP, Dougherty RP, Jackson JS, Schmid B, Hutchinson JR, Shefelbine SJ. BoneJ: Free and extensible bone image analysis in ImageJ.. Bone 2010 Dec;47(6):1076-9.
    pmc: PMC3193171pubmed: 20817052doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.023google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 24 times.
  1. Sun T, Wang J, Huang H, Liu X, Zhang J, Zhang W, Wang H, Li Z. Low-temperature deposition manufacturing technology: a novel 3D printing method for bone scaffolds. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2023;11:1222102.
    doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1222102pubmed: 37622000google scholar: lookup
  2. Fan Z, Liu H, Ding Z, Xiao L, Lu Q, Kaplan DL. Simulation of Cortical and Cancellous Bone to Accelerate Tissue Regeneration. Adv Funct Mater 2023 Aug 15;33(33).
    doi: 10.1002/adfm.202301839pubmed: 37601745google scholar: lookup
  3. Yang W, Wang C, Luo W, Apicella A, Ji P, Wang G, Liu B, Fan Y. Effectiveness of biomechanically stable pergola-like additively manufactured scaffold for extraskeletal vertical bone augmentation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2023;11:1112335.
    doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1112335pubmed: 37057137google scholar: lookup
  4. Guerrero J, Ghayor C, Bhattacharya I, Weber FE. Osteoconductivity of bone substitutes with filament-based microarchitectures: Influence of directionality, filament dimension, and distance. Int J Bioprint 2023;9(1):626.
    doi: 10.18063/ijb.v9i1.626pubmed: 36844242google scholar: lookup
  5. Schulze F, Lang A, Schoon J, Wassilew GI, Reichert J. Scaffold Guided Bone Regeneration for the Treatment of Large Segmental Defects in Long Bones. Biomedicines 2023 Jan 24;11(2).
    doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11020325pubmed: 36830862google scholar: lookup
  6. Hong MH, Lee JH, Jung HS, Shin H, Shin H. Biomineralization of bone tissue: calcium phosphate-based inorganics in collagen fibrillar organic matrices. Biomater Res 2022 Sep 6;26(1):42.
    doi: 10.1186/s40824-022-00288-0pubmed: 36068587google scholar: lookup
  7. Yang Z, Wang C, Gao H, Jia L, Zeng H, Zheng L, Wang C, Zhang H, Wang L, Song J, Fan Y. Biomechanical Effects of 3D-Printed Bioceramic Scaffolds With Porous Gradient Structures on the Regeneration of Alveolar Bone Defect: A Comprehensive Study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2022;10:882631.
    doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.882631pubmed: 35694236google scholar: lookup
  8. Carotenuto F, Politi S, Ul Haq A, De Matteis F, Tamburri E, Terranova ML, Teodori L, Pasquo A, Di Nardo P. From Soft to Hard Biomimetic Materials: Tuning Micro/Nano-Architecture of Scaffolds for Tissue Regeneration. Micromachines (Basel) 2022 May 16;13(5).
    doi: 10.3390/mi13050780pubmed: 35630247google scholar: lookup
  9. Hara K, Hellem E, Yamada S, Sariibrahimoglu K, Mølster A, Gjerdet NR, Hellem S, Mustafa K, Yassin MA. Efficacy of treating segmental bone defects through endochondral ossification: 3D printed designs and bone metabolic activities. Mater Today Bio 2022 Mar;14:100237.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100237pubmed: 35280332google scholar: lookup
  10. Naghieh S, Lindberg G, Tamaddon M, Liu C. Biofabrication Strategies for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Evolution towards Clinical Applications. Bioengineering (Basel) 2021 Sep 10;8(9).
    doi: 10.3390/bioengineering8090123pubmed: 34562945google scholar: lookup
  11. Wei W, Dai H. Articular cartilage and osteochondral tissue engineering techniques: Recent advances and challenges. Bioact Mater 2021 Dec;6(12):4830-4855.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.05.011pubmed: 34136726google scholar: lookup
  12. Tang G, Liu Z, Liu Y, Yu J, Wang X, Tan Z, Ye X. Recent Trends in the Development of Bone Regenerative Biomaterials. Front Cell Dev Biol 2021;9:665813.
    doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.665813pubmed: 34026758google scholar: lookup
  13. Ribitsch I, Oreff GL, Jenner F. Regenerative Medicine for Equine Musculoskeletal Diseases. Animals (Basel) 2021 Jan 19;11(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11010234pubmed: 33477808google scholar: lookup
  14. Gonzalez-Fernandez T, Tenorio AJ, Campbell KT, Silva EA, Leach JK. Alginate-Based Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting and Fabrication of Anatomically Accurate Bone Grafts. Tissue Eng Part A 2021 Sep;27(17-18):1168-1181.
    doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2020.0305pubmed: 33218292google scholar: lookup
  15. Wu R, Li Y, Shen M, Yang X, Zhang L, Ke X, Yang G, Gao C, Gou Z, Xu S. Bone tissue regeneration: The role of finely tuned pore architecture of bioactive scaffolds before clinical translation. Bioact Mater 2021 May;6(5):1242-1254.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.11.003pubmed: 33210022google scholar: lookup
  16. Zhang Q, Gou C, Zhang Z. Biomimetic materials: a promising strategy for periodontal tissue engineering and regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2025;13:1639170.
    doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1639170pubmed: 41376696google scholar: lookup
  17. Liu Y, Wan Y, Li C, Guan G, Wang F, Gao J, Wang L. Gradient scaffolds in bone-soft tissue interface engineering: Structural characteristics, fabrication techniques, and emerging trends. J Orthop Translat 2025 Jan;50:333-353.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.10.015pubmed: 39944791google scholar: lookup
  18. Araya M, Järvenpää A, Rautio T, Vindas R, Estrada R, de Ruijter M, Guillén T. In-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation of bio-inspired structures fabricated via PBF-LB for biomedical applications. Mater Today Bio 2025 Apr;31:101450.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2025.101450pubmed: 39896284google scholar: lookup
  19. Zhang H, Wang Y, Hu Q, Liu Q. Morphological Integrated Preparation Method and Implementation of Inorganic/Organic Dual-Phase Composite Gradient Bionic Bone Scaffold. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2024 Apr 1;11(2):e607-e618.
    doi: 10.1089/3dp.2022.0111pubmed: 38689928google scholar: lookup
  20. Qu H, Gao C, Liu K, Fu H, Liu Z, Kouwer PHJ, Han Z, Ruan C. Gradient matters via filament diameter-adjustable 3D printing. Nat Commun 2024 Apr 4;15(1):2930.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-47360-ypubmed: 38575640google scholar: lookup
  21. de Ruijter M, Diloksumpan P, Dokter I, Brommer H, Smit IH, Levato R, van Weeren PR, Castilho M, Malda J. Orthotopic equine study confirms the pivotal importance of structural reinforcement over the pre-culture of cartilage implants. Bioeng Transl Med 2024 Jan;9(1):e10614.
    doi: 10.1002/btm2.10614pubmed: 38193127google scholar: lookup
  22. Zhou J, See CW, Sreenivasamurthy S, Zhu D. Customized Additive Manufacturing in Bone Scaffolds-The Gateway to Precise Bone Defect Treatment. Research (Wash D C) 2023;6:0239.
    doi: 10.34133/research.0239pubmed: 37818034google scholar: lookup
  23. Singh S, Zhou Y, Farris AL, Whitehead EC, Nyberg EL, O'Sullivan AN, Zhang NY, Rindone AN, Achebe CC, Zbijewski W, Grundy W, Garlick D, Jackson ND, Kraitchman D, Izzi JM, Lopez J, Grant MP, Grayson WL. Geometric Mismatch Promotes Anatomic Repair in Periorbital Bony Defects in Skeletally Mature Yucatan Minipigs. Adv Healthc Mater 2023 Nov;12(29):e2301944.
    doi: 10.1002/adhm.202301944pubmed: 37565378google scholar: lookup
  24. Shojaee A. Equine tendon mechanical behaviour: Prospects for repair and regeneration applications. Vet Med Sci 2023 Sep;9(5):2053-2069.
    doi: 10.1002/vms3.1205pubmed: 37471573google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.