Inadequate self-repair and regenerative efficiency of the cartilage tissues has motivated the researchers to devise advanced and effective strategies to resolve this issue. Introduction of bioprinting to tissue engineering has paved the way for fabricating complex biomimetic engineered constructs. In this context, the current review gears off with the discussion of standard and advanced 3D/4D printing technologies and their implications for the repair of different cartilage tissues, namely, articular, meniscal, nasoseptal, auricular, costal, and tracheal cartilage. The review is then directed towards highlighting the current stem cell opportunities. On a concluding note, associated critical issues and prospects for future developments, particularly in this sphere of personalized medicines have been discussed.
With the advancement in 3D bioprinting technology, cell culture methods can design 3D environments which are both, complex and physiologically relevant. The main component in 3D bioprinting, bioink, can be split into various categories depending on the criterion of categorization. Although the choice of bioink and bioprinting process will vary greatly depending on the application, general features such as material properties, biological interaction, gelation, and viscosity are always important to consider. The foundation of 3D bioprinting is the exact layer-by-layer implantation of biological elements, biochemicals, and living cells with the spatial control of the implantation of functional elements onto the biofabricated 3D structure. Three basic strategies underlie the 3D bioprinting process: autonomous self-assembly, micro tissue building blocks, and biomimicry or biomimetics. Tissue engineering can benefit from 3D bioprinting in many ways, but there are still numerous obstacles to overcome before functional tissues can be produced and used in clinical settings. A better comprehension of the physiological characteristics of bioink materials and a higher level of ability to reproduce the intricate biologically mimicked and physiologically relevant 3D structures would be a significant improvement for 3D bioprinting to overcome the limitations.
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a unique combination of technological advances in 3D printing and tissue engineering. It has emerged as a promising approach to address the dilemma in current dental treatments faced by clinicians in order to repair or replace injured and diseased tissues. The exploration of 3D bioprinting technology provides high reproducibility and precise control of the bioink containing the desired cells and biomaterial over the architectural and dimensional features of the scaffolds in fabricating functional tissue constructs that are specific to the patient treatment need. In recent years, the dental applications of different 3D bioprinting techniques, types of novel bioinks, and the types of cells used have been extensively explored. Most of the findings noted significant challenges compared to the non-biological 3D printing approach in constructing the bioscaffolds that mimic native tissues. Hence, this review focuses solely on the implementation of 3D bioprinting techniques and strategies based on cell-laden bioinks. It discusses the in vitro applications of 3D-bioprinted scaffolds on cell viabilities, cell functionalities, differentiation ability, and expression of the markers as well as the in vivo evaluations of the implanted bioscaffolds on the animal models for bone, periodontal, dentin, and pulp tissue regeneration. Finally, it outlines some perspectives for future developments in dental applications.
Three-dimensionally printed constructs are static and do not recapitulate the dynamic nature of tissues. Four-dimensional (4D) bioprinting has emerged to include conformational changes in printed structures in a predetermined fashion using stimuli-responsive biomaterials and/or cells. The ability to make such dynamic constructs would enable an individual to fabricate tissue structures that can undergo morphological changes. Furthermore, other fields (bioactuation, biorobotics, and biosensing) will benefit from developments in 4D bioprinting. Here, the authors discuss stimuli-responsive biomaterials as potential bioinks for 4D bioprinting. Natural cell forces can also be incorporated into 4D bioprinted structures. The authors introduce mathematical modeling to predict the transition and final state of 4D printed constructs. Different potential applications of 4D bioprinting are also described. Finally, the authors highlight future perspectives for this emerging technology in biomedicine.