Skip to main content

Biofabrication for osteochondral tissue regeneration: bioink printability requirements

Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine volume 30, Article number: 20 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Biofabrication allows the formation of 3D scaffolds through a precise spatial control. This is of foremost importance when aiming to mimic heterogeneous and anisotropic architecture, such as that of the osteochondral tissue. Osteochondral defects are a supreme challenge for tissue engineering due to the compositional and structural complexity of stratified architecture and contrasting biomechanical properties of the cartilage-bone interface. This review highlights the advancements and retreats witnessed by using developed bioinks for tissue regeneration, taking osteochondral tissue as a challenging example. Methods, materials and requirements for bioprinting were discussed, highlighting the pre and post-processing factors that researchers should consider towards the development of a clinical treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

42,99 €

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Easley ME, Cushner FD, Scott WN. Insall & Scott surgery of the knee. Surgery of the Knee. New York, Churchill Livingstone. 2001;1:480.

  2. 2.

    Prakash D, Learmonth D. Natural progression of osteo-chondral defect in the femoral condyle. Knee. 2002;9:7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Solomon L, Warwick DJ, Nayagam S. Apley’s system of orthopaedics and fractures, Ninth Edition. Malaysian Orthop. 2010;875.

  4. 4.

    Marcacci M, Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, Busacca M, Zaffagnini S. Arthroscopic autologous osteochondral grafting for cartilage defects of the knee: prospective study results at a minimum 7-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(12):2014–21.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hangody L, Vásárhelyi G, Hangody LR, Sükösd Z, Tibay G, Bartha L, et al. Autologous osteochondral grafting-technique and long-term results. Injury. 2008;39(1 SUPPL.):32–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kon E, Gobbi A, Filardo G, Delcogliano M, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M. Arthroscopic second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture for chondral lesions of the knee: Prospective nonrandomized study at 5 years. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(1):33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lane JG, Healey RM, Chen AC, Sah RL, Amiel D. Can osteochondral grafting be augmented with microfracture in an extended-size lesion of articular cartilage? Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(7):1316–23.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Martin I, Miot S, Barbero A, Jakob M, Wendt D. Osteochondral tissue engineering. J Biomech. 2007;40:750–65.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schaefer D, Martin I, Shastri P, Padera RF, Langer R, Freed LE, et al. In vitro generation of osteochondral composites. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2599–606.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Castro NJ, Hacking SA, Zhang LG. Recent progress in interfacial tissue engineering approaches for osteochondral defects. Ann Biomed Eng. 2012;40:1628–40.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zhang L, Hu J, Athanasiou KA. The role of tissue engineering in articular cartilage repair and regeneration. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2009;37(1–2):1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Zhang L, Webster TJ. Nanotechnology and nanomaterials: promises for improved tissue regeneration. Nano Today. 2009;4:66–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Yang PJ, Temenoff JS. Engineering orthopedic tissue interfaces. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2009;15(2):127–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Keeney M, Pandit A. The osteochondral junction and its repair via bi-phasic tissue engineering scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2009;15(1):55–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schinagl RM, Gurskis D, Chen AC, Sah RL. Depth-dependent confined compression modulus of full-thickness bovine articular cartilage. J Orthop Res. 1997;15(4):499–506.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mente PL, Lewis JL. Elastic modulus of calcified cartilage is an order of magnitude less than that of subchondral bone. J Orthop Res. 1994;12(5):637–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Arvidson K, Abdallah BM, Applegate LA, Baldini N, Cenni E, Gomez-Barrena E, et al. Bone regeneration and stem cells. J Cell Mol Med. 2011;15:718–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mouser VHM, Levato R, Bonassar LJ, D’Lima DD, Grande DA, Klein TJ, et al. Three-dimensional bioprinting and its potential in the field of articular cartilage regeneration. Cartilage. 2017;8:327–40.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ. Prediction of the optimal mechanical properties for a scaffold used in osteochondral defect repair. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(9):2509–19.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stoop R. Smart biomaterials for tissue engineering of cartilage. Injury. 2008;39(1 SUPPL.):77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Nukavarapu SP, Dorcemus DL. Osteochondral tissue engineering: current strategies and challenges. Biotechnol Adv. 2013;31:706–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bhosale AM, Richardson JB. Articular cartilage: structure, injuries and review of management. Br Med Bull. 2008;87:77–95.

  23. 23.

    Toh WS, Spector M, Lee EH, Cao T. Biomaterial-mediated delivery of microenvironmental cues for repair and regeneration of articular cartilage. Mol Pharm. 2011;8:994–1001.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Aspberg A. Cartilage proteoglycans. In: Cartilage: Volume 1: physiology and development. 2016. p. 1–22.

  25. 25.

    Poole AR, Kojima T, Yasuda T, Mwale F, Kobayashi M, Laverty S. Composition and structure of articular cartilage: a template for tissue repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;1(391 Suppl):S26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Goldring MB, Marcu KB. Cartilage homeostasis in health and rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(3):224.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Holland TA, Tabata Y, Mikos AG. Dual growth factor delivery from degradable oligo(poly(ethylene glycol) fumarate) hydrogel scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. J Control Release. 2005;101:111–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Harley BA, Lynn AK, Wissner-Gross Z, Bonfield W, Yannas IV, Gibson LJ. Design of a multiphase osteochondral scaffold III: fabrication of layered scaffolds with continuous interfaces. J Biomed Mater Res - Part A. 2010;92(3):1078–93.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Almarza AJ, Athanasiou KA. Design characteristics for the tissue engineering of cartilaginous tissues. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004;32(1):2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ozbolat IT. Bioprinting of osteochondral tissues: A perspective on current gaps and future trends. Int J Bioprinting. 2017;3(2):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Clark JM, Huber JD. The structure of the human subchondral plate. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1990;72:866–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Moroni L, Burdick JA, Highley C, Lee SJ, Morimoto Y, Takeuchi S. et al. Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine. Nature Reviews Materials. 2018;3:21–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Groll J, Boland T, Blunk T, Burdick JA, Cho DW, Dalton PD, et al. Biofabrication: reappraising the definition of an evolving field. Biofabrication. 2016;8:013001.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Moroni L, Boland T, Burdick JA, De Maria C, Derby B, Forgacs G, et al. Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):384–402.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Liu X, Wu S, Yeung KWK, Chan YL, Hu T, Xu Z, et al. Relationship between osseointegration and superelastic biomechanics in porous NiTi scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2011;32(2):330–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Malda J, Woodfield TBF, Van Der Vloodt F, Wilson C, Martens DE, Tramper J, et al. The effect of PEGT/PBT scaffold architecture on the composition of tissue engineered cartilage. Biomaterials. 2005;26(1):63–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hedayati R, Ahmadi SM, Lietaert K, Pouran B, Li Y, Weinans H, et al. Isolated and modulated effects of topology and material type on the mechanical properties of additively manufactured porous biomaterials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;79:254–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fu CY, Tseng SY, Yang SM, Hsu L, Liu CH, Chang HY. A microfluidic chip with a U-shaped microstructure array for multicellular spheroid formation, culturing and analysis. Biofabrication. 2014;6(1):5009.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Young C, Rozario K, Serra C, Poole-Warren L, Martens P. Poly(vinyl alcohol)-heparin biosynthetic microspheres produced by microfluidics and ultraviolet photopolymerisation. Biomicrofluidics. 2013;7(4):44109.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Schon BS, Hooper GJ, Woodfield TBF. Modular tissue assembly strategies for biofabrication of engineered cartilage. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45:100–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:773–85.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ozbolat IT, Hospodiuk M. Current advances and future perspectives in extrusion-based bioprinting. Biomaterials. 2016;76:321–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Visser J, Peters B, Burger TJ, Boomstra J, Dhert WJA, Melchels FPW. et al. Biofabrication of multi-material anatomically shaped tissue constructs. Biofabrication. 2013;5(3):5007.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Schuurman W, Levett PA, Pot MW, van Weeren PR, Dhert WJA, Hutmacher DW, et al. Gelatin-methacrylamide hydrogels as potential biomaterials for fabrication of tissue-engineered cartilage constructs. Macromol Biosci. 2013;13(5):551–61.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Cui X, Breitenkamp K, Lotz M, D’Lima D. Synergistic action of fibroblast growth factor-2 and transforming growth factor-beta1 enhances bioprinted human neocartilage formation. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2012;109(9):2357–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kim JE, Kim SH, Jung Y. Current status of three-dimensional printing inks for soft tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2016;13:636–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Tan H, Marra KG. Injectable, biodegradable hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Mater (Basel). 2010;3(3):1746–67.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Billiet T, Vandenhaute M, Schelfhout J, Van Vlierberghe S, Dubruel P. A review of trends and limitations in hydrogel-rapid prototyping for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2012;33:6020–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Malda J, Visser J, Melchels FP, Jüngst T, Hennink WE, Dhert WJA, et al. 25th anniversary article: Engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater. 2013;25:5011–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Ott HC, Matthiesen TS, Goh SK, Black LD, Kren SM, Netoff TI, et al. Perfusion-decellularized matrix: Using nature’s platform to engineer a bioartificial heart. Nat Med. 2008;14(2):213–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Malda J, Frondoza CG. Microcarriers in the engineering of cartilage and bone. Trends Biotechnol. 2006;24:299–304.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Greenwald AS. Biological performance of materials. Fundamentals of Biocompatibility. J Bone Jt Surg. 2001;83(6):970.

  53. 53.

    Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008;29(20):2941–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Gaharwar AK, Sant S, Hancock MJ, Hacking SA. Nanomaterials in tissue engineering: fabrication and applications. Nanomaterials in Tissue Engineering: Fabrication and Applications. 2013.

  55. 55.

    Vyas C, Poologasundarampillai G, Hoyland J, Bartolo P. 3D printing of biocomposites for osteochondral tissue engineering. In: Biomedical Composites (Second Edition). Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials. 2017, p. 261–302.

  56. 56.

    Stevens MM, George JH. Exploring and engineering the cell surface interface. Science. 2005;310(5751):1135–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Place ES, Evans ND, Stevens MM. Complexity in biomaterials for tissue engineering. Nat Mater. 2009;8(6):457–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Crowder SW, Leonardo V, Whittaker T, Papathanasiou P, Stevens MM. Material cues as potent regulators of epigenetics and stem cell function. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18(1):39–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Morouço P, Lattanzi W, Alves N. Four-dimensional bioprinting as a new era for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2017;5:61.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Gaharwar AK, Peppas NA, Khademhosseini A. Nanocomposite hydrogels for biomedical applications. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111(3):441–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Xu K, Wang J, Chen Q, Yue Y, Zhang W, Wang P. Spontaneous volume transition of polyampholyte nanocomposite hydrogels based on pure electrostatic interaction. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2008;321(2):272–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Utech S, Boccaccini AR. A review of hydrogel-based composites for biomedical applications: enhancement of hydrogel properties by addition of rigid inorganic fillers. J Mater Sci. 2016;51:271–310.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Ribeiro A, Blokzijl MM, Levato R, Visser CW, Castilho M, Hennink WE. et al. Assessing bioink shape fidelity to aid material development in 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication. 2017;10(1):4102.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Nicodemus GD, Bryant SJ. Cell encapsulation in biodegradable hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2008;14(2):149–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Aguado BA, Mulyasasmita W, Su J, Lampe KJ, Heilshorn SC. Improving viability of stem cells during syringe needle flow through the design of hydrogel cell carriers. Tissue Eng Part A. 2012;18(7–8):806–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Blaeser A, Duarte Campos DF, Puster U, Richtering W, Stevens MM, Fischer H. Controlling shear stress in 3D bioprinting is a key factor to balance printing resolution and stem cell integrity. Adv Healthc Mater. 2016;5(3):326–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Nair K, Gandhi M, Khalil S, Yan KC, Marcolongo M, Barbee K, et al. Characterization of cell viability during bioprinting processes. Biotechnol J. 2009;4(8):1168–77.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Bencherif SA, Srinivasan A, Horkay F, Hollinger JO, Matyjaszewski K, Washburn NR. Influence of the degree of methacrylation on hyaluronic acid hydrogels properties. Biomaterials. 2008;29(12):1739–49.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Jungst T, Smolan W, Schacht K, Scheibel T, Groll J. Strategies and molecular design criteria for 3D printable hydrogels. Chem Rev. 2016;116:1496–539.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Gulrez SK, Al-Assaf S, Phillips GO. Hydrogels: Methods of preparation, characterisation and applications in molecular and environmental bioengineering. Prog Mol Environ Bioeng - From Anal Moddelling to Technol Appl. 2011;646.

  71. 71.

    Dragan ES. Design and applications of interpenetrating polymer network hydrogels. A review. Chem Eng J. 2014;243:572–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Wang Z, Abdulla R, Parker B, Samanipour R, Ghosh S, Kim K. A simple and high-resolution stereolithography-based 3D bioprinting system using visible light crosslinkable bioinks. Biofabrication 2015;7(4):045009.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Hennink WE, van Nostrum CF. Novel crosslinking methods to design hydrogels. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:223–36.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Duarte Campos DF, Blaeser A, Weber M, Jäkel J, Neuss S, Jahnen-Dechent W, et al. Three-dimensional printing of stem cell-laden hydrogels submerged in a hydrophobic high-density fluid. Biofabrication. 2013;5(1):5003–13.

  75. 75.

    Nikkhah M, Eshak N, Zorlutuna P, Annabi N, Castello M, Kim K, et al. Directed endothelial cell morphogenesis in micropatterned gelatin methacrylate hydrogels. Biomaterials. 2012;33(35):9009–18.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    You F, Wu X, Zhu N, Lei M, Eames BF, Chen X. 3D Printing of porous cell-laden hydrogel constructs for potential applications in cartilage tissue engineering. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2016;2(7):1200–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Li X, Ding J, Wang J, Zhuang X, Chen X. Biomimetic biphasic scaffolds for osteochondral defect repair. Regen Biomater. 2015;2(3):221–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Wang M, Cheng X, Zhu W, Holmes B, Keidar M, Zhang LG. Design of biomimetic and bioactive cold plasma-modified nanostructured scaffolds for enhanced osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A. 2014;20(5–6):1060–71.

  79. 79.

    Holmes B, Zhu W, Li J, Lee JD, Zhang LG. Development of novel three-dimensional printed scaffolds for osteochondral regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21(1–2):403–15.

  80. 80.

    Gao J, Dennis JE, Solchaga LA, Awadallah AS, Goldberg VM, Caplan AI. Tissue-engineered fabrication of an osteochondral composite graft using rat bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Eng. 2001;7(4):363–71.

  81. 81.

    Theodoropoulos JS, De Croos JNA, Park SS, Pilliar R, Kandel RA. Integration of tissue-engineered cartilage with host cartilage: An in vitro model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2785–95.

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Rodrigues MT, Lee SJ, Gomes ME, Reis RL, Atala A, Yoo JJ. Bilayered constructs aimed at osteochondral strategies: the influence of medium supplements in the osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation of amniotic fluid-derived stem cells. Acta Biomater. 2012;8(7):2795–806.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Miot S, Brehm W, Dickinson S, Sims T, Wixmerten A, Longinotti C, et al. Influence of in vitro maturation of engineered cartilage on the outcome of osteochondral repair in a goat model. Eur Cells Mater. 2012;23:222–36.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Newitt DC, Majumdar S, Van Rietbergen B, Von Ingersleben G, Harris ST, Genant HK, et al. In vivo assessment of architecture and micro-finite element analysis derived indices of mechanical properties of trabecular bone in the radius. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13(1):6–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Fedorovich NE, Schuurman W, Wijnberg HM, Prins HJ, van Weeren PR, Malda J, et al. Biofabrication of osteochondral tissue equivalents by printing topologically defined, cell-laden hydrogel scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2012;18(1):33–44.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Nowicki MA, Castro NJ, Plesniak MW, Zhang LG. 3D printing of novel osteochondral scaffolds with graded microstructure. Nanotechnology 2016;27(41):4001–10.

  87. 87.

    Markstedt K, Mantas A, Tournier I, Martínez Ávila H, Hägg D, Gatenholm P. 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose-alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16(5):1489–96.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Rhee S, Puetzer JL, Mason BN, Reinhart-King CA, Bonassar LJ. 3D Bioprinting of spatially heterogeneous collagen constructs for cartilage tissue engineering. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2016;2(10):1800–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Das S, Pati F, Choi YJ, Rijal G, Shim JH, Kim SW, et al. Bioprintable, cell-laden silk fibroin-gelatin hydrogel supporting multilineage differentiation of stem cells for fabrication of three-dimensional tissue constructs. Acta Biomater. 2015;11(1):233–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Chung JHY, Naficy S, Yue Z, Kapsa R, Quigley A, Moulton SE. et al. Bio-ink properties and printability for extrusion printing living cells. Biomater Sci. 2013;1(7):763.

  91. 91.

    Ouyang L, Highley CB, Rodell CB, Sun W, Burdick JA. 3D Printing of shear-thinning hyaluronic acid hydrogels with secondary cross-linking. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2016;2(10):1743–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Hong S, Sycks D, Chan HFA, Lin S, Lopez GP, Guilak F, et al. 3D Printing: 3D printing of highly stretchable and tough hydrogels into complex, cellularized structures. Adv Mater. 2015;27(27):4034.

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Zhu F, Cheng L, Wang ZJ, Hong W, Wu ZL, Yin J, et al. 3D-Printed ultratough hydrogel structures with titin-like domains. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9(13):11363–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Yang F, Tadepalli V, Wiley BJ. 3D Printing of a double network hydrogel with a compression strength and elastic modulus greater than those of cartilage. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2017;3(5):863–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Gao F, Xu Z, Liang Q, Liu B, Li H, Wu Y, et al. Direct 3D printing of high strength biohybrid gradient hydrogel scaffolds for efficient repair of osteochondral defect. Adv Funct Mater. 2018;28:1706644–56.

  96. 96.

    Du Y, Liu H, Yang Q, Wang S, Wang J, Ma J, et al. Selective laser sintering scaffold with hierarchical architecture and gradient composition for osteochondral repair in rabbits. Biomaterials. 2017;137:37–48.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    3D printing of a lithium-calcium-silicate crystal bioscaffold with dual bioactivities for osteochondral interface reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2018.

  98. 98.

    Doulabi AH, Mequanint K, Mohammadi H. Blends and nanocomposite biomaterials for articular cartilage tissue engineering. Mater (Basel). 2014;7(7):5327–55.

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Tiruvannamalai-Annamalai R, Armant DR, Matthew HWT. A glycosaminoglycan based, modular tissue scaffold system for rapid assembly of perfusable, high cell density, engineered tissues. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e84287.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by PAMI (ROTEIRO/0328/2013; Nº 022158), a Research Infrastructure of the National Roadmap of Research Infrastructures of Strategic Relevance for 2014–2020, co-funded by the FCT and European Union through the Centro2020.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Rapid and Sustainable Product Development, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Rua de Portugal – Zona Industrial., Marinha Grande, 2430-028, Portugal

    Saba Abdulghani & Pedro G. Morouço

Authors
  1. Saba Abdulghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro G. Morouço
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saba Abdulghani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdulghani, S., Morouço, P.G. Biofabrication for osteochondral tissue regeneration: bioink printability requirements. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 30, 20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-019-6218-x

Download citation