3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds for long bone repair in animal models: a systematic review.
3D printing
Animal study
Bone tissue engineering
Ti6Al4V
Titanium alloy
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Feb 2022
02 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
18
10
2021
accepted:
21
01
2022
entrez:
3
2
2022
pubmed:
4
2
2022
medline:
11
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Titanium and its alloys have been widely employed for bone tissue repair and implant manufacturing. The rapid development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has allowed fabrication of porous titanium scaffolds with controllable microstructures, which is considered to be an effective method for promoting rapid bone formation and decreasing bone absorption. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the osteogenic potential of 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V (Ti64) scaffold for repairing long bone defects in animal models and to investigate the influential factors that might affect its osteogenic capacity. Electronic literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase up to September 2021. The SYRCLE's tool and the modified CAMARADES list were used to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality, respectively. Due to heterogeneity of the selected studies in relation to protocol and outcomes evaluated, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The initial search revealed 5858 studies. Only 46 animal studies were found to be eligible based on the inclusion criteria. Rabbit was the most commonly utilized animal model. A pore size of around 500-600 µm and porosity of 60-70% were found to be the most ideal parameters for designing the Ti64 scaffold, where both dodecahedron and diamond pores optimally promoted osteogenesis. Histological analysis of the scaffold in a rabbit model revealed that the maximum bone area fraction reached 59.3 ± 8.1% at weeks 8-10. Based on micro-CT assessment, the maximum bone volume fraction was found to be 34.0 ± 6.0% at weeks 12. Ti64 scaffold might act as a promising medium for providing sufficient mechanical support and a stable environment for new bone formation in long bone defects. Trail registration The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under the number CRD42020194100.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Titanium and its alloys have been widely employed for bone tissue repair and implant manufacturing. The rapid development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has allowed fabrication of porous titanium scaffolds with controllable microstructures, which is considered to be an effective method for promoting rapid bone formation and decreasing bone absorption. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the osteogenic potential of 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V (Ti64) scaffold for repairing long bone defects in animal models and to investigate the influential factors that might affect its osteogenic capacity.
METHODS
METHODS
Electronic literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase up to September 2021. The SYRCLE's tool and the modified CAMARADES list were used to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality, respectively. Due to heterogeneity of the selected studies in relation to protocol and outcomes evaluated, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The initial search revealed 5858 studies. Only 46 animal studies were found to be eligible based on the inclusion criteria. Rabbit was the most commonly utilized animal model. A pore size of around 500-600 µm and porosity of 60-70% were found to be the most ideal parameters for designing the Ti64 scaffold, where both dodecahedron and diamond pores optimally promoted osteogenesis. Histological analysis of the scaffold in a rabbit model revealed that the maximum bone area fraction reached 59.3 ± 8.1% at weeks 8-10. Based on micro-CT assessment, the maximum bone volume fraction was found to be 34.0 ± 6.0% at weeks 12.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Ti64 scaffold might act as a promising medium for providing sufficient mechanical support and a stable environment for new bone formation in long bone defects. Trail registration The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under the number CRD42020194100.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35109907
doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-02960-6
pii: 10.1186/s13018-022-02960-6
pmc: PMC8812248
doi:
Substances chimiques
Alloys
0
titanium alloy (TiAl6V4)
12743-70-3
Titanium
D1JT611TNE
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Micron. 2017 Mar;94:1-8
pubmed: 27960108
Animals (Basel). 2020 Aug 11;10(8):
pubmed: 32796533
J Mater Chem B. 2019 May 7;7(17):2865-2877
pubmed: 32255089
Bull Exp Biol Med. 2019 Sep;167(5):681-684
pubmed: 31630302
J Orthop Res. 2016 Mar;34(3):369-85
pubmed: 26488900
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jun;7(11):240
pubmed: 31317010
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Feb;59:1047-1052
pubmed: 26652463
J Orthop Translat. 2019 Apr 06;19:94-105
pubmed: 31844617
Eur Cell Mater. 2007 Mar 02;13:1-10
pubmed: 17334975
Biomaterials. 2019 Oct;218:119334
pubmed: 31306826
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jun;101-B(6_Supple_B):62-67
pubmed: 31146557
Eur Cell Mater. 2015 Mar 04;29:141-53; discussion 153-4
pubmed: 25738583
Tissue Eng Part A. 2015 May;21(9-10):1495-506
pubmed: 25627039
Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2009 Jun;15(2):115-24
pubmed: 19072196
J Mater Chem B. 2018 May 28;6(20):3254-3261
pubmed: 32254383
Biomaterials. 2005 Sep;26(27):5474-91
pubmed: 15860204
Acta Biomater. 2016 May;36:296-309
pubmed: 27000553
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005 May 1;73(2):223-33
pubmed: 15761810
Biomaterials. 2014 Jul;35(21):5436-45
pubmed: 24726538
Materials (Basel). 2020 Apr 24;13(8):
pubmed: 32344664
Bioact Mater. 2021 Mar 21;6(10):3437-3448
pubmed: 33817419
ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019 Dec 9;5(12):6463-6473
pubmed: 33417799
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2020 Mar;108:110406
pubmed: 31924051
Acta Biomater. 2016 Jan;30:345-356
pubmed: 26523335
Bone. 2011 Oct;49(4):591-9
pubmed: 21782988
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004 Jun 1;69(3):567-76
pubmed: 15127404
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Aug;84:1-11
pubmed: 29709846
J Orthop Translat. 2015 Jun 16;3(3):95-104
pubmed: 30035046
Dis Model Mech. 2018 Apr 23;11(4):
pubmed: 29685995
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2022 Feb;210:112229
pubmed: 34875470
Biomaterials. 2009 Apr;30(12):2149-63
pubmed: 19211141
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015 Mar 18;7(10):5715-24
pubmed: 25711714
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2020 Jan 21;31(2):17
pubmed: 31965345
Vet Pathol. 2015 Sep;52(5):842-50
pubmed: 26163303
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021 Apr;116:104380
pubmed: 33588248
Materials (Basel). 2019 Jan 09;12(2):
pubmed: 30634440
Bioact Mater. 2020 Jul 15;5(4):1087-1101
pubmed: 32695938
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 26;14:43
pubmed: 24667063
ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019 Feb 11;5(2):1123-1133
pubmed: 33405802
Biomed Mater. 2015 Jun 24;10(3):035013
pubmed: 26107105
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018 Dec 12;10(49):42146-42154
pubmed: 30507136
Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2021 Jun 18;:
pubmed: 33882717
J Orthop Res. 2013 May;31(5):792-9
pubmed: 23255164
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2020 Jan;106:110289
pubmed: 31753386
Acta Biomater. 2016 Jan;30:357-367
pubmed: 26577985
Injury. 2010 Jul;41(7):717-23
pubmed: 20097341
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0227232
pubmed: 31923253
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Dec;88:488-496
pubmed: 30223212
Biofabrication. 2016 Oct 27;8(4):045012
pubmed: 27788122
Biomaterials. 2014 Aug;35(24):6172-81
pubmed: 24811260
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Mar 11;15(1):102
pubmed: 32160924
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 26;6:34072
pubmed: 27667204
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 23;7:41118
pubmed: 28112235
Addit Manuf. 2019 Aug;28:259-266
pubmed: 31406683
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016 Jul 20;8(28):17964-75
pubmed: 27341499
Ann Transl Med. 2021 Jan;9(1):39
pubmed: 33553332
J Biomater Appl. 2013 May;27(8):1003-16
pubmed: 22207608