Mini review Topical Sections

Macro-, micro- and mesoporous materials for tissue engineering applications

  • The design of three-dimensional materials with multiscale pore architecture currently represents a relevant challenge for tissue engineering. In the last three decades, degradable and resorbable biomaterials have been variously manipulated to generate macro/micro/mesoporous templates able to guide and facilitate basic cell activities concurring to the sequence of events triggering in vitro and in vivo regeneration of tissues. In this context, an accurate control of porosity features (i.e., pore size and distribution, pore interconnectivity) as a function of the peculiar properties of constituent materials is extremely demanded to not compromise scaffold mechanical properties and stability and replying local micro-environmental features from structural and functional point of view. Herein, an extended overview of consolidated and emerging approaches to design macro-, micro-, and mesoporous materials has been reported, underlining among differences mainly due to the peculiar properties of used biomaterials (i.e., polymers, ceramics, composites).

    Citation: Osmar Alejandro Chanes-Cuevas, Adriana Perez-Soria, Iriczalli Cruz-Maya, Vincenzo Guarino, Marco Antonio Alvarez-Perez. Macro-, micro- and mesoporous materials for tissue engineering applications[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(6): 1124-1140. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.6.1124

    Related Papers:

    [1] Vincenzo Guarino, Tania Caputo, Rosaria Altobelli, Luigi Ambrosio . Degradation properties and metabolic activity of alginate and chitosan polyelectrolytes for drug delivery and tissue engineering applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(4): 497-502. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.4.497
    [2] Raffaele Conte, Anna Di Salle, Francesco Riccitiello, Orsolina Petillo, Gianfranco Peluso, Anna Calarco . Biodegradable polymers in dental tissue engineering and regeneration. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(6): 1073-1101. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.6.1073
    [3] Dolores Esquivel, Pascal Van Der Voort, Francisco J. Romero-Salguero . Designing advanced functional periodic mesoporous organosilicas for biomedical applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2014, 1(1): 70-86. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2014.1.70
    [4] Mohamed Lokman Jalaluddin, Umar Al-Amani Azlan, Mohd Warikh Abd Rashid, Norfauzi Tamin, Mohamad Najmi Masri . A review of pore-forming agents on the structures, porosities, and mechanical properties of porous ceramics. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(4): 634-665. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024033
    [5] Misato Kuroyanagi, Yoshimitsu Kuroyanagi . Tissue-engineered products capable of enhancing wound healing. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(3): 561-581. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.3.561
    [6] Elena Kossovich . Theoretical study of chitosan-graphene and other chitosan-based nanocomposites stability. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(2): 317-327. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.2.317
    [7] Bandar Abdullah Aloyaydi, Subbarayan Sivasankaran, Hany Rizk Ammar . Influence of infill density on microstructure and flexural behavior of 3D printed PLA thermoplastic parts processed by fusion deposition modeling. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(6): 1033-1048. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.1033
    [8] Gregory N. Haidemenopoulos, Kostantinos N. Malizos, Anna D. Zervaki, and Kostantinos Bargiotas . Human bone ingrowth into a porous tantalum acetabular cup. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(6): 1220-1230. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.6.1220
    [9] Eugen A. Preoteasa, Elena S. Preoteasa, Ioana Suciu, Ruxandra N. Bartok . Atomic and nuclear surface analysis methods for dental materials: A review. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(4): 781-844. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.4.781
    [10] Ekhard K.H. Salje . Porosity in minerals. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(1): 1-8. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022001
  • The design of three-dimensional materials with multiscale pore architecture currently represents a relevant challenge for tissue engineering. In the last three decades, degradable and resorbable biomaterials have been variously manipulated to generate macro/micro/mesoporous templates able to guide and facilitate basic cell activities concurring to the sequence of events triggering in vitro and in vivo regeneration of tissues. In this context, an accurate control of porosity features (i.e., pore size and distribution, pore interconnectivity) as a function of the peculiar properties of constituent materials is extremely demanded to not compromise scaffold mechanical properties and stability and replying local micro-environmental features from structural and functional point of view. Herein, an extended overview of consolidated and emerging approaches to design macro-, micro-, and mesoporous materials has been reported, underlining among differences mainly due to the peculiar properties of used biomaterials (i.e., polymers, ceramics, composites).


    1. Introduction

    Current approach in tissue engineering involves the use tailor-made 3D porous templates to guide all the main biological mechanisms—cell attachment, proliferation, differentiation and subsequent extracellular matrix formation, both in vitro and in vivo [1]. The development of three-dimensional platforms with multiscale pore architecture is still a key point in tissue engineering. In the last three decades, biocompatible, biodegradable and porous materials have been manipulated to generate macro/micro/mesoporous networks able to guide and facilitate basic cell activities involved in the sequence of events that trigger the regeneration in vitro of new tissues (Figure 1) [2]. In agreement with the ideal regeneration strategy, porous scaffolds can promote the formation of new tissue by the morphological signals due to adequate spaces, namely porosity, and sufficiently extended surfaces able to direct cellular attachment, migration, proliferation, and desired differentiation of specific cell phenotypes throughout the scaffold. In this context, a proper definition of 3D scaffold architecture is crucial to reproduce all the required signals at the macro-, micro- and nanoscales, corresponding to tissue, cellular, and molecular sizes in a specific tissue, respectively (Figure 2) [3,4]. In particular, the fine control of pore size distribution in combination with the use of selected polymers with controlled degradation kinetics and in context with cells and molecular drugs, allows forming in vitro bio-hybrids to be converted in ex-novo tissues directly in vivo. The optimization of porosity and pore interconnectivity is also mandatory to improve oxygen and nutrient permeation and transport, and metabolite removal, in order to support the processes of tissue vascularization and/or mineralization, fundamental for late processes of regeneration [5]. Meanwhile, an accurate control of porosity features is also crucial to not compromise scaffold mechanical properties and stability, in order to reproduce micro-environmental features, from structural and functional point of view.

    Figure 1. Pore architectures at different size scale: macro- micro- and mesopores.
    Figure 2. Pore architectures at different size scale: biological targets.

    In the last years, the definition of highly controllable processing techniques (Table 1) enabled to design custom made scaffolds with different pore resolution or accuracy as a function of the specific technology used. Herein, we will illustrate different processing techniques for scaffold fabrication, distinguishing between conventional technologies, additive manufacturing and electrofluidodynamics.

    Table 1. Processing techniques to design scaffolds.
    Processing technologies Average pores (μm) Compressive strength (MPa) Refs.
    Conventional Thermal induced phase separation (TIPS) 0.10–400 1–100 [6,7]
    Salt leaching 50–300 11–28 [8,9]
    Solvent casting/particulate leaching 50–300 1–10 [10,11]
    Phase separation/salt leaching 150–600 0.1–1.5 [12]
    Gas foaming 20–500 3–50 [13,14]
    Emulsion freeze-drying 40–300 0.3–5 [15,16]
    Melt extrusion 400–500 8 [17]
    Additive based Stereolithography 300–500 14 [18,19]
    Selective laser sintering 30–800 10–20 [20]
    Bioprinting 50–500 0.1–5 [21]
    Electrofluidodynamics Air jet spinning 0.1–20 0.5–5 [22]
    Electrospinning 0.010–45 1–3 [23]
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    2. Conventional technologies

    Conventional techniques are highly flexible methods to design 3D matrices which combine the multiple requirements to obtain optimal bio-instructive scaffolds. Commonly applied techniques for the fabrication of porous scaffolds include thermally induced phase separation [24], salt leaching [25], solvent casting/particulate leaching [26], phase separation/salt leaching [27], particle sintering [28], gas foaming [29], emulsion freeze-drying [30] and melt extrusion [6]. One of the most interesting strategies to design porous scaffolds (exceeding 95%) involves the use of phase separation techniques to generate porous network by binary or ternary polymer/solvent mixtures [29]. Basically, the polymer is dissolved in a solvent and a phase separation is induced by lowering the solution temperature [31] or adding a non-solvent to the solution [32]. Thermal induced phase separation or TIPS is a complex process, depending on the interplay between thermodynamic and kinetic evolution of the polymer solution cooling process. In particular, a liquid–liquid phase separation occurs when the applied temperature is higher than the solvent crystallization temperature or higher than the freezing point, while a solid–liquid phase separation takes place when the solvent crystallization temperature exceeds the coolant temperature [33]. Then, the system is cooled down to the desired quenching temperature using a ramp temperature profile, until to remove the solvent in order to obtain the porous structure. Solvent removal can be performed by either freeze-drying or freeze-extraction [34]. This technique assures the formation of an intrinsically interconnected porous structure through a simple fabrication process. The process can be tuned with manipulating the processing parameters to fabricate scaffolds with the desired characteristics and pore morphologies. Moreover, inorganic materials can be incorporated into the scaffold matrix to enhance the bioactivity and mechanical properties of the scaffold. Meanwhile, biologically active materials (i.e., structural proteins, polysaccharides) may be also used to promote the ex-novo formation of natural tissues. However, some limitation concerns the capability to customize the porous network along the scaffold thickness thus limiting the possibility to generate complex architectures to mimic hierarchically organized tissues like bone. Hence, the potential use of additive or subtracting manufacturing techniques in combination with physical/chemical principia of TIPS, may be successfully addressed to the fabrication of hierarchical structures which more accurately mimic the local microenvironment of hard tissues.


    3. Additive technologies

    Additive manufacturing technologies are forcefully emerging as feasible technological solutions to develop three-dimensional instructive scaffolds with highly ordered architectures for tissue and organ regeneration. They generally consist in layer-by-layer fabrication strategies suitable to reproduce porous platforms with complex shapes and microstructures since 3-D model data, by high degree of automation, good accuracy and reproducibility. They are currently used to generate different patterns to exert basic structural functionalities required to support viability of cells within the 3-D printed network. In the last 10 years, several studies have widely demonstrated the enormous potential of additive manufacturing (AM) to design tailor-made scaffolds to properly guide cell activities for the regeneration of different kinds of soft and hard tissues [35]. This is possible by an accurate control of the morphological features (i.e., pore size distribution, pore volume, and pore interconnectivity, anisotropy) which can be optimized by the implementation of less invasive processing routes able to easily manipulate either synthetic biomaterials than biological ones (i.e., proteins, polysaccharides) [36]. During the last years, a large variety of 3D printing-based techniques have been implemented to design porous scaffolds for the replacement of tissues and organs. Each technique presents benefits and disadvantages in terms of feasibility, material processability, strut resolution, and productivity [37]. For example, layer-by-layer structures can be fabricated by AM technologies based on ultraviolet (UV) light photopolymerization. They include stereolithography (SLA) [38], and selective laser sintering (SLS) [39] that reproduce complex designs by fast processing and high resolution. These methods allow fabricating 3-D scaffolds by hardening a photopolymer resin under the controlled exposure to UV light or another similar power source. In these cases, much attention is required for the selection of cytocompatible photo-initiators to minimize damaging effects on cell membrane, protein, and nucleic acids, ascribable to the formation of free radicals that may potentially restrict their use in tissue engineering applications [40]. More recently, AM technologies have been also adapted to design 3-D in vitro models able to bridge traditional cell culture and in vivo modeling. This innovative approach allows predicting relevant aspects of in vivo behavior, only traditionally assessed by animal implants and/or human trials [41]. Respect to traditionally used in vitro 2-D models with significant limitations to recapitulate the complex tissue microenvironment [42], novel approaches based on 3-D bioprinting can combine main advantages of consolidated rapid prototyping (RP) techniques with innovative biofunctionalization strategies, thus providing much more physiologically relevant information about organogenesis, disease progression, and molecular release onto specific targets. In perspective, novel biomaterials in the form of powder or bioinks could be used to implement innovative approaches for a rational printing of cells and biomacromolecules derived from native extracellular matrix (ECM) in order to generate in vitro and/or in vivo tissue analogue structures. By the use of multiple bio-inks and cell types will be possible to guide in vitro and in vivo generation processes [43], to design and rapidly fabricate mechanically stable, functional, human-scale tissues such as the mandible, calvarial bone, cartilage, and skeletal muscles.


    3.1. Electrofluidodynamics

    Electrofluidodynamic techniques (EFDs) are emerging as highly flexible and low-cost AM processes able to manipulate biomaterials by utilizing electrostatic forces, giving the unique opportunity to design 3D ECM-like platforms to guide cells activities during in vitro regeneration/degeneration processes. By a solid knowledge of EFDTs fundamentals, it is possible to revisit conventional approaches in order to develop new cutting-edge strategies to process/assemble biomaterials in the form of micro-/nano- particles and fibers with intriguing properties for tissue engineering, cancer therapy and nanomedicine [44] (Figure 3). By the application of electric forces generated by high voltage electric fields, they allow generating ultrafine biodegradable fibers from micro down to the nanoscale. By an accurate optimization of process conditions, it is possible to fabricate different fiber-based platforms with multilevel architectures, able to variously interact with cells in order to trigger specific biological activities (i.e., adhesion, proliferation, cell metabolism) as a function of specific micro-, submicro- or nanotexture [45]. The main advantages of these techniques lie in a large customization of the process that allows the production of fibers made of different materials variously assembled by tailored experimental setups, to generate a plethora of different devices with peculiar topological (i.e., surface roughness, fiber anisotropy) or biochemical signals due to physical/chemical entrapment of biopolymers (i.e., proteins, polysaccharides) and/or active molecules (e.g., drugs, growth factors) [46,47]. Hence, EFDs and, in particular, the electrospinning, are the most promising processes to design temporary extracellular matrix (ECM) analogs by multicomponent fibers able to simultaneously confer structural properties and bioactivity to the scaffolds, to more efficiently support the main regeneration processes of the skeletal system (i.e., bone [48], nerve [49] and skeletal muscle [50]. Recent advances in nanotechnologies have allowed the renew of EFDs processes also to engineer more complex platforms able to deliver drugs and/or growth factors sustainably, timely and controllably to a specific target. For instance, Additive Electro Spraying (AES) [51]—in other words, integration of electrosprayed nanoparticles into electrospun fiber network—has been proposed as an interesting route to control "separately" and "independently" release and functional properties of the scaffolds in order to address cell activities during the "ex-novo" formation of novel extracellular matrix. More recently, similar approach has been successfully proposed for the fabrication of bioactive coatings with interesting antimicrobial activity to fight resistant antibacterial populations in oral cavity [52], paving the way towards a new functional coating with no relevant increase of process complexity and resource costs.

    Figure 3. Electrofluidodynamic setups to design fibres and/or particles at micro- and submicro-scale.

    4. Design of mesoporous materials

    Among the nanoscale materials, a class of mesoporous materials—i.e., pores with a range between 2 to 50 nm—have become the subject of intense research worldwide because of their unique physical and chemical properties like tunable sizes, shapes (spheres to rods), uniform cylindrical mesopores and high surface areas easily for functionalization. Owing the mentioned structural features, the diverse range of biomedical applications as effective delivery vehicles for pharmaceuticals and bioactive molecules or as host materials for bioimaging, biocatalytic, and biosensing agents, have been widely recognized [53,54]. The vast majority of recent publications have centered around biological applications with a majority dealing with drug delivery systems. Several other bio-based articles on mesoporous systems concern biomass conversion and biofuels, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, ultrasound therapy, enzyme immobilization, antigen targeting, biodegradation of inorganic materials, applications for improved digestion, and antitumor activity [55,56,57]. The types of mesoporous materials range from carbon materials, metal oxides, metal sulfides, metal nitrides, carbonitriles, metal organic frameworks, and silica materials. Investigations conducted to elucidate the biocompatibility of these materials on biological systems, are still a subject of intense debate.


    4.1. Mesoporous silica materials

    The mesoporous silica materials (MSM) could be synthesized through hydrogels or sol–gel method and even its physicochemical properties can be designed according to the conditions used [58]. In the synthesis of these highly ordered porous materials, structure controlling agents of amphiphilic nature are used, and those agents are associated in supramolecular arrangements. The agents could be ionic, neutral or surfactants. Hydrothermal sol–gel synthesis is from large chains of cationic surfactants that act as templates or pore-forming agents. Depending on the materials used and the synthesis conditions, different pore sizes, types of ordered structure and particle morphology of silicon oxide can be obtained. The three phases generated by these materials are: hexagonal (honeycomb type), typical of MCM-41, SBA-15 and HMS; cubic, characteristic of MCM-48; and the laminar, is presented in the MCM-50 and is unstable. However, the MSM are group of materials for example the M41S family consists of the materials MCM-41, MCM-48 and MCM-50, with structures characterized by their respective X-ray diffraction diagrams [59]. The most stable and common phase at low concentrations of surfactant is the hexagonal form (MCM-41). The cubic phase (MCM-48) whose structure is more complex, consists of two systems of three-dimensional channels that accommodate one another forming a cubic symmetry. Finally, high concentrations of surfactant favor the formation of the lamellar phase (MCM-50) in which there is a stacking of mesopores that collapse after removing the surfactant by calcination. M41S mesoporous siliceous materials exhibit characteristics such as a narrow pore range, high surface areas and pore volumes, as well as high thermal stability [60]. Another group is SBA-type mesoporous materials have large pores, thick pore walls and show very high stability. Among this materials Santa Barbara Amorphous (SBA-15 and SBA-16) are amorphous mesoporous silica material, for example SBA-15 has a two-dimensional hexagonal hole structure cubic and cubic symmetry with large specific surface area and pore volume that could provide target sites for cell adhesion (Figure 4). Moreover, SBA-16 is considered as an interesting microarchitecture as it has a 3D cubic cage structure (body-centered cubic ordering of cages with 8 connecting entrances, Im3m symmetry) with multidirectional and large pore systems allowing good accessibility for functionalization [61,62].

    Figure 4. a) SEM of ceramic mesoporous SBA-15; b) TEM of ceramic mesoporous SBA-15.

    Mesoporous materials are generally modified by attaching suitable functional groups on their surfaces, to serve as effective host materials for drug or bioactive molecules, biosensors, biocatalysts, or site-specific bioimaging agents. The functionalized MSM can be different depending on how the surfactant templates are removed, because repeated exposure to organic solvents during solvent extraction accumulate free radicals, with unexpected negative consequences toward cells. However, calcination results in free of possible residual surfactants, generally preferable for biological applications [63,64]. The biological applications of MSM are ideal for adsorbing and holding up pharmaceuticals or bioactive substances into their mesopores and biologically active molecules, due to mesopore sizes, large pore volumes, high surface areas, highly ordered mesoporous structures and their easy surface functionalization. The dimensions of MSM pores are suitable size for passive delivery of drugs into cells, giving a biologically friendly material. The biocompatibility issues are mainly associated with how the MSM interfere with a variety of biological processes depending on the cell type. The nature and structural features of the MSM composition, make a more stable system for different biological applications. In addition, many types of MSM show nontoxic effects in biological systems if they are prepared and applied at the right dosages. For these reasons, MSM have long emerged as candidate materials for biomedical applications.


    4.2. Mesoporous calcium phosphate materials

    Calcium phosphate (CaP) materials are widely used in orthopedics and dentistry bone regeneration field, due to their structure and properties. For medical applications they are used in the form of bone cements, paste, scaffolds, or coatings. CaP family is composed of calcium cations and ortho, meta, or pyrophosphate anions, and sometimes hydrogen or hydroxide ions are present. CaP in form of calcium is commonly found in milk, blood, also the major inorganic constituents of bone, teeth and other calcified tissues. A wide variety of CaPs, from the individual phases to nano-CaP, biphasic and triphasic CaP formulations, composite CaP coatings and cements, functionally graded materials (FGMs), and antibacterial CaPs are studied [65]. CaPs can be manufactured in both porous and dense forms, as well as powders, granulates, coating or in the form of injectable systems. Their combination with hydrogels (i.e., PVA) may be also efficaciously used to modulate cement properties (i.e., setting or hardening properties) thus influencing micro- and mesopore architecture [66,67].

    Among all calcium phosphates, those with designed and interconnected porosity present very interesting features to be employed in biomedicine, since their interconnected porosity allows transport of body fluids within the bioceramics, enhances their degradation, and increases the possibility of proteins and cells colonizing them [68]. Porosity of CaP is fundamental important for ingrowth of bone. Traditionally, CaP was macroporous (~100 µm). Biological and medical significance of calcium phosphates but studies have shown that increasing the pore volume may accelerate the kinetic process of biological apatite deposition. Mesoporous CaP bioceramics can permit the ingrowth of bone tissue and cells and therefore, enhance the bone formation [69]. Resorption serves to replace CaPs coating or cement with bone, either by cells or dissolution processes, dependent on the phase content of the CaP, particle size, crystallinity and porosity. Increasing porosity enhances the dissolution rate, which can explain the large differences in solubility of different HAp scaffolds [70]. For CaP mesoporous materials the rate of bone substitution may take 3 to 36 months, while the normal resorbability rate is between a few months and years [71]. This trait is important respect to short and long term biologically desired properties where mesoporous CaPs bioceramics, resemble the best prospect in biomaterials.


    5. Biomedical applications of meso- and microporous composite scaffolds

    Although porous and mesoporous materials (PMM's) were initially developed for catalysis, their potential was quickly discovered for many other applications such as sensors, optical materials, photocatalysis, electrical systems and above all in the field of medical research. It is precisely in this field in which scientists have shown a greater interest in PMM's as biotechnological materials due to its high potential to host different host molecules thanks to its high specific surface area and particular geometry. These characteristics and their low toxicity make promising PMM's vehicles useful for the release of drugs and as a biomaterial for tissue engineering regeneration strategies [72]. It was in 2001 when these materials were proposed, for the first time, as controlled drug release systems [73]. Its ordered porous structure and homogeneous pore size favor the reproducibility of the processes of adsorption and release of biomolecules, its high specific surface area gives them great adsorption capacity and its high pore volume allows to house the amount of drug required, also on its surface. There are silanol groups capable of reacting chemically with organic molecules in a process called functionalization that allows controlling the biomolecule-matrix interaction and thus modulating the adsorption and release processes. Subsequently, in 2006 it was demonstrated that these systems can act as implantable bioceramics with capacity for bone regeneration. Thus, the appropriate combination of these two characteristics has led to the development of bioceramics able to locally release drugs for the treatment of diseases related to bone tissue, such as bisphosphonates, very potent drugs that have low intestinal absorption and of which only small doses are necessary. These characteristics make these systems excellent candidates for use in bone regeneration technologies (Table 2) [74].

    Table 2. Main applications of mesoporous materials for tissue engineering.
    Materials Pore size Structure Key Results Refs.
    MCM-41 3–5 nm Hexagonal The principal advantages of mesoporous are the following: (1) a large surface area and pore volume provide great potential for drug adsorption and loading within the pore channels and (2) excellent mesoporous structure and an adjustable pore size enable better control of drug loading and release kinetics. In vitro bioactivity studies by soaking three different mesoporous materials, SBA-15, MCM-48 and MCM-41, in simulated body fluid showed an apatite-like layer is formed on the surface of SBA-15 and MCM-48 materials after 30 and 60 days, respectively, allowing their use in biomedical engineering for tissue regeneration. MCM-41 also exhibits a bioactive behavior when its walls are doped with phosphorus or when small amounts of bioactive glasses are added. [59,60,64]
    MCM-48 2–3 nm 3D cubic
    SBA-15 5–10 nm Hexagonal
    CaP 20–500 nm Porous and dense forms, powders, granulates The osteoconductivity and osteoinductivity that CaP possess, make of them a suitable candidate for the regeneration of bone. Its surface topography guide protein adsorption and consequently cell adhesion. In addition to solubility and topography, CaP properties such as surface charge and crystallinity affect several key precursor events such as protein adsorption and cell adhesion, which ultimately modulate osteoblastic differentiation. [61,62,69]
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The design of advanced porous ceramic materials for the regeneration of bone tissue is one of the great current challenges in the investigation of biomaterials. The possibility of obtaining bioceramics as macroporous pieces would allow to apply them both in the in situ regeneration of bone tissue and in the manufacture of cellular solids for application in tissue engineering [75,76]. Given that the fundamental role in regeneration will be played by the cells, it is essential to obtain supports in the form of pieces with a designed porosity similar to that of natural bone and thus allow the tissue formed to fulfill its different physiological functions. Therefore, it is interesting to develop forming methods that provide interconnected macroporosity in the range of 20–1000 μm while preserving the intrinsic mesoporosity of the starting materials [37,77]. In this way, mesoporosity allows to harbor biomolecules of clinical interest and macroporosity allows the growth of bone tissue, its oxygenation and finally its vascularization. On the other hand, by functionalizing the external surface of the material with peptides or growth factors that act as osteoinductive signals, it is possible to attract bone-forming cells and induce them to fulfill their function [78,79].

    Implantable materials may improve their osteointegration properties due to the presence of mesoporous CaP bioceramics. The bioactivity mechanism is the dissolution and release of calcium and phosphate ions to elevate the local concentrations and favor the precipitation of apatites on the ceramics surface [68]. Mesoporous CaP bioceramics are widely used in the field of bone regeneration, due to their good biocompatibility, osseointegration and osteoconduction that involves recruitment of progenitor cells, adhesion and proliferation of cells in the CaPs to differentiate towards the osteoblastic linage [69]. Even though, the compressive strength is fairly good, being higher than that of normal bone. CaPs mesoporous wider limitation for clinical application is the moderate mechanical properties. CaPs have low impact resistance related to their primary ionic bonds and relatively low tensile stress (6 to 10 MPa) because of their porosity, which attend as initiation sites for crack propagation [71]. CaPs coatings, cements and scaffold have been integrated with both organic and inorganic materials, and polymers to control the biodegradability and bioactivity, improvement of the mechanical properties, corrosion resistance [80]. The use of mesoporous CaPs for healing bone defects, is limited. Many properties as setting time, cohesion/washout resistance, injectability, macroporosity, mechanical properties, long-term degradation, drug eluting properties, and biological response can be improved by adding a synthetic or natural polymeric phase [81].

    Examples for natural polymers are: alginate, chitin, chitosan, silk, hyluronate, cellulose, gelatin, soybean, albumen, collagen, and chondroitin sulfate. Synthetic polymers include polyethylene glycol (PEG), poly(ethyl) acrylate, polyesters and polyethers, polyacrylic acid (PAA), fibrin, PLGA, poly(glycolic acid) (PGA), polycaprolactone (PCL), poly-L-lactide acid (PLLA), amide fibres, polyamide fibres [81]. In tissue engineering, both synthetic and natural polymers are considered for scaffold development. Such scaffolds are similar to soft tissues that are present in the human body and the advantages of polymer scaffold are that they provide interconnected porosity, varying surface chemistry, and distinctive geometries for regeneration of tissues. The important properties of the scaffold can be enhanced by carefully selecting the polymers, with the appropriate constituent material and process of fabrication [40,82]. Moreover, synthetic polymers are preferred in the field of biomedical science because they show higher degradation and controlled porosity which can be tailored based on the application. The polymer/ceramic composites are a class of materials scaffolds which possess properties that could biologically mimic the properties of bone and the dual benefit of both ceramic and polymer could be huge for tissue engineering (Table 3). Such composites exhibit better biocompatibility, enhanced mechanical property, controlled biodegradation and also increase osteogenesis ability [83,84].

    Table 3. Comparison of composite porous scaffolds with different size scale of pores.
    Nanopores Macropores Materials Structure Key Results Refs.
    Nanometric scale (5–10 nm of porogen, columnar (φ20 × 10 mm)) 100 μm fully interconnectivity PLLA/SBA-15 Highly ordered structure via layer-by-layer selective laser sintering (SLS). Porosity degree close to 50/60% The number of cells on the composite scaffolds with SBA15 was much greater than that of scaffolds without SBA15 at the same time of culture. Compressive strength, compressive modulus and Vickers hardness were improved. [69]
    Sub- micrometric scale(~390 nm) Micropores formed via Gel Casting Not interconnected pores nHA/BioGlass/Alumina Composite Interconnected porous structures with low porosity degree (20–25%) The composite powder material showed no toxic effects on the MG-63 cell lines; the presence of nHAp and bioactive glass enhanced the biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of the scaffold material. The developed composite scaffold exhibited enhanced mechanical properties, with compressive strength of ~157 ± 2 MPa, tensile strength of ~83 ± 2 MPa. [70]
    Micrometric 0.7–1 μm 200–400 μm Partially interconnected pores Mg/CHA particles dispersion in porous PCL scaffolds Random pore architecture. Porosity degree exceeding 80% Mg, CO3-doped HA in PCL scaffolds support the in vivo cellular response by inducing neo-bone formation as early as 2 months post-implantation, and abundant mature bone tissue at the sixth month, with a lamellar structure and completely formed bone marrow. [71,72]
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Currently several studies have reported that polymer/ceramic composite scaffolds have improved in mechanical properties and cellular response. Kang et al. reported that the good attachment of minerals with polymer scaffolds enhanced the mechanical properties and improved the cell attachment of the polymer scaffolds [85], also Xu et al. reported a mesoporous silica composite scaffold which show that stimulates cell behaviors, had good bioactivity and improved the mechanical properties of the scaffold [86], Mondal et al. reported a nano-hydroxyapatite bioactive glass composite scaffold which exhibited 20–25% porosity, a high compressive strength of 157 ± 2 MPa, also facilitated new cell attachment, growth, and proliferation on its surface, all of which correlates with good osteoconductive properties [87]. Guarino et al. demonstrated that PCL composite influenced the surface wettability with implications upon cell-material interaction and new bone formation mechanisms. In particular, ion substitution in apatite crystals positively influences the early in vitro cellular response of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs), i.e., adhesion and proliferation, and promoted an extensive mineralization of the scaffold in osteogenic medium, thus conforming to a more faithful reproduction of the native bone environment than undoped HA particles and also at in vivo cellular response showed the neo-bone formation as early as 2  months post-implantation, and abundant mature bone tissue at the sixth month, with a lamellar structure and completely formed bone marrow [88,89].


    6. Conclusions

    The applications of macro-, micro- and mesoporous materials is shown to be a promising biomaterial for bone tissue engineering due to its biocompatibility with beneficial influence on structural characteristics of the scaffolds that could represent a new therapeutic strategy to repair bone defects. Moreover, macro-, micro- and mesoporous materials could be an excellent material for bone tissue engineering because its properties and it can ease to mold in various geometries, could give advantages to enhance the biocompatibility and the functionalization for delivery of growth factors and genetic materials to the bone contributing to prepare new kind of scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration.


    Acknowledgments

    DGAPA-UNAM: PAPIIT: IA209217 and IT203618 projects. OACC thanks to CONACYT (No. 463760) for his doctoral scholarship, ICM thanks INCIPIT COFUND H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie project (Grant n. 665403) for her doctoral scholarship.


    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.


    [1] Barrilleaux B, Phinney DG, Prockop DJ, et al. (2006) Review: ex vivo engineering of living tissues with adult stem cells. Tissue Eng 12: 3007–3019. doi: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.3007
    [2] Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21: 2529–2543. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6
    [3] Lee J, Guarino V, Gloria A, et al. (2010) Regeneration of Achilles' tendon: the role of dynamic stimulation for enhanced cell proliferation and mechanical properties. J Biomat Sci-Polym E 21: 1173–1190. doi: 10.1163/092050609X12471222313524
    [4] Veronesi F, Giavaresi G, Guarino V, et al. (2015) Bioactivity and bone healing properties of biomimetic porous composite scaffold: in vitro and in vivo studies. J Biomed Mater Res A 103: 2932–2941. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35433
    [5] Guarino V, Galizia M, Alvarez-Perez MA, et al. (2015) Improving surface and transport properties of macroporous hydrogels for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A 103: 1095–1105. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35246
    [6] Guarino V, Ambrosio L (2010) Temperature-driven processing techniques for manufacturing fully interconnected porous scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. P I Mech Eng H 224: 1389–1400. doi: 10.1243/09544119JEIM744
    [7] Liu X, Ma PX (2009) Phase separation, pore structure, and properties of nanofibrous gelatin scaffolds. Biomaterials 30: 4094–4103. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.024
    [8] Gong S, Wang H, Sun Q, et al. (2006) Mechanical properties and in vitro biocompatibility of porous zein scaffolds. Biomaterials 27: 3793–3799. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.02.019
    [9] Chiu YC, Larson JC, Isom Jr. A, et al. (2010) Generation of porous poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels by salt leaching. Tissue Eng C 16: 905–912.
    [10] De Nardo L, Bertoldi S, Cigada A, et al. (2012) Preparation and characterization of shape memory polymer scaffolds via solvent casting/particulate leaching. J Appl Biomater Func 2: 119–126.
    [11] Intranuovo F, Gristina R, Brun F, et al. (2014) Plasma modification of PCL porous scaffolds fabricated by solvent-casting/particulate-leaching for tissue engineering. Plasma Process Polym 11: 184–195. doi: 10.1002/ppap.201300149
    [12] Hou Q, Grijpma DW, Feijen J (2003) Porous polymeric structures for tissue engineering prepared by a coagulation, compression moulding and salt leaching technique. Biomaterials 24: 1937–1947. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00562-8
    [13] Yoon JJ, Song SH, Lee DS, et al. (2004) Immobilization of cell adhesive RGD peptide onto the surface of highly porous biodegradable polymer scaffolds fabricated by a gas foaming/salt leaching method. Biomaterials 25: 5613–5620. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.014
    [14] Kim TK, Yoon JJ, Lee DS, et al. (2006) Gas foamed open porous biodegradable polymeric microspheres. Biomaterials 27: 152–159. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.05.081
    [15] Kim BS, Kim EJ, Choi JS, et al. (2014) Human collagen-based multilayer scaffolds for tendon-to-bone interface tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 102: 4044–4054. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35057
    [16] Sultana N, Wang M (2008) Fabrication of HA/PHBV composite scaffolds through the emulsion freezing/freeze-drying process and characterisation of the scaffolds. J Mater Sci-Mater M 19: 2555–2561. doi: 10.1007/s10856-007-3214-3
    [17] Xiong Z, Yan Y, Zhang R, et al. (2001) Fabrication of porous poly(L-lactic acid) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering via precise extrusion. Scripta Mater 45: 773–779. doi: 10.1016/S1359-6462(01)01094-6
    [18] Seck TM, Melchels FPW, Feijen J, et al. (2010) Designed biodegradable hydrogel structures prepared by stereolithography using poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(d,l-lactide)-based resins. J Control Release 148: 34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.07.111
    [19] Elomaa L, Teixeira S, Hakala R, et al. (2011) Preparation of poly(ε-caprolactone)-based tissue engineering scaffolds by stereolithography. Acta Biomater 7: 3850–3856. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.06.039
    [20] Yan M, Tian X, Peng G, et al. (2017) Hierarchically porous materials prepared by selective laser sintering. Mater Design 135: 62–68. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.09.015
    [21] Liverani L, Guarino V, La Carrubba V, et al. (2017) Porous biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering, In: Narayan R, Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering.
    [22] Granados-Hernández MV, Serrano-Bello J, Montesinos JJ, et al. (2018) In vitro and in vivo biological characterization of poly(lactic acid) fiber scaffolds synthesized by air jet spinning. J Biomed Mater Res B 106: 2435–2446. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34053
    [23] Guarino V, Ambrosio L (2016) Electrofluidodynamics: exploring a new toolbox to design biomaterials for tissue regeneration and degeneration. Nanomedicine 11: 1515–1518. doi: 10.2217/nnm-2016-0108
    [24] Blaker JJ, Knowles JC, Day RM (2008) Novel fabrication techniques to produce microspheres by thermally induced phase separation for tissue engineering and drug delivery. Acta Biomater 4: 264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.09.011
    [25] Manferdini C, Guarino V, Zini N, et al. (2010) Mineralization occurs faster on a new biomimetic hyaluronic acid-based scaffold. Biomaterials 31: 3986–3996.
    [26] Guarino V, Lewandowska M, Bil M, et al. (2010) Morphology and degradation properties of PCL/HYAFF11® composite scaffolds with multi-scale degradation rate. Compos Sci Technol 70: 1826–1837. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.06.015
    [27] Salerno A, Guarino V, Oliviero O, et al. (2016) Bio-safe processing of polylactic-co-caprolactone and polylactic acid blends to fabricate nanofibrous porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mat Sci Eng C-Mater 63: 512–521. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.03.018
    [28] Luciani A, Guarino V, Ambrosio L, et al. (2019) Solvent and melting induced microspheres sintering techniques : a comparative study of morphology and mechanical properties. J Mater Sci-Mater M 22: 2019–2028.
    [29] Guarino V, Causa F, Salerno A, et al. (2008) Design and manufacture of microporous polymeric materials with hierarchal complex structure for biomedical application. Mater Sci Technol 24: 1111–1117. doi: 10.1179/174328408X341799
    [30] Whang K, Healy KE (1995) A novel method scaffolds to fabricate bioabsorbable. Polymer 36: 837–842. doi: 10.1016/0032-3861(95)93115-3
    [31] Ma PX, Zhang R (1998) Synthetic nano-scale fibrous extracellular matrix. J Biomed Mater Res 46: 60–72.
    [32] Sohn DG, Hong MW, Kim YY, et al. (2015) Fabrication of dual-pore scaffolds using a combination of wire-networked molding (WNM) and non-solvent induced phase separation (NIPS) techniques. J Bionic Eng 12: 565–574. doi: 10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60146-3
    [33] Shin KC, Kim BS, Kim JH, et al. (2005) A facile preparation of highly interconnected macroporous PLGA scaffolds by liquid–liquid phase separation II. Polymer 46: 3801–3808. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2005.02.114
    [34] Li S, Chen X, Li M (2011) Effect of some factors on fabrication of poly(L-lactic acid) microporous foams by thermally induced phase separation using N,N-dimethylacetamide as solvent. Prep Biochem Biotech 41: 53–72.
    [35] Billiet T, Vandenhaute M, Schelfhout J, et al. (2012) A review of trends and limitations in hydrogel-rapid prototyping for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 33: 6020–6041. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.04.050
    [36] Forbes SJ, Rosenthal N (2014) Preparing the ground for tissue regeneration : from mechanism to therapy. Nat Med 20: 857–869. doi: 10.1038/nm.3653
    [37] Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4: 518–524. doi: 10.1038/nmat1421
    [38] Skoog SA, Goering PL, Narayan RJ (2014) Stereolithography in tissue engineering. J Mater Sci-Mater M 25: 845–856. doi: 10.1007/s10856-013-5107-y
    [39] Ko SH, Pan H, Grigoropoulos CP (2007) All-inkjet-printed flexible electronics fabrication on a polymer substrate by low-temperature high-resolution selective laser sintering of metal nanoparticles. Nanotechnology 18: 345202. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/18/34/345202
    [40] Hutmacher DW (2001) Scaffold design and fabrication technologies for engineering tissues-state of the art and future perspectives. J Biomat Sci-Polym E 12: 107–124. doi: 10.1163/156856201744489
    [41] Khademhosseini A, Bong GC (2009) Microscale technologies for tissue engineering. 2009 IEEE/NIH Life Science Systems and Applications Workshop, Bethesda, MD, USA, 56–57.
    [42] Fischbach C, Chen R, Matsumoto T, et al. (2007) Engineering tumors with 3D scaffolds. Nat Methods 4: 855–860. doi: 10.1038/nmeth1085
    [43] Rutz AL, Hyland KE, Jakus AE, et al. (2015) A multimaterial bioink method for 3D printing tunable, cell-compatible hydrogels. Adv Mater 27: 1607–1614. doi: 10.1002/adma.201405076
    [44] Guarino V, Cirillo V, Altobelli R, et al. (2015) Polymer-based platforms by electric field-assisted techniques for tissue engineering and cancer therapy. Expert Rev Med Devic 12: 113–129. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2014.953058
    [45] Guaccio A, Guarino V, Alvarez-Perez MA, et al. (2011) Influence of electrospun fiber mesh size on hMSC oxygen metabolism in 3D collagen matrices: Experimental and theoretical evidences. Biotechnol Bioeng 108: 1965–1976. doi: 10.1002/bit.23113
    [46] Cirillo V, Guarino V, Alvarez-Perez MA, et al. (2014) Optimization of fully aligned bioactive electrospun fibers for "in vitro" nerve guidance. J Mater Sci-Mater M 25: 2323–2332. doi: 10.1007/s10856-014-5214-4
    [47] Pires LR, Guarino V, Oliveira MJ, et al. (2016) Ibuprofen-loaded poly(trimethylene carbonate-co-ε-caprolactone) electrospun fibres for nerve regeneration. J Tissue Eng Regen M 10: E154–E166. doi: 10.1002/term.1792
    [48] Alvarez-Perez MA, Guarino V, Cirillo V, et al. (2012) In vitro mineralization and bone osteogenesis in poly(ε-caprolactone)/gelatin nanofibers. J Biomed Mater Res A 100: 3008–3019.
    [49] Cirillo V, Clements BA, Guarino V, et al. (2014) A comparison of the performance of mono- and bi-component electrospun conduits in a rat sciatic model. Biomaterials 35: 8970–8982. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.07.010
    [50] Fasolino I, Guarino V, Cirillo V, et al. (2017) 5-Azacytidine-mediated hMSC behavior on electrospun scaffolds for skeletal muscle regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A 105: 2551–2561. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36111
    [51] Guarino V, Altobelli R, Cirillo V, et al. (2015) Additive electrospraying: a route to process electrospun scaffolds for controlled molecular release. Polym Advan Technol 26: 1359–1369. doi: 10.1002/pat.3588
    [52] Guarino V, Cruz-Maya I, Altobelli R, et al. (2017) Antibacterial platforms via additive electrofluidodynamics for oral treatments. Nanotechology 28: 505303.
    [53] Slowing II, Vivero-Escoto JL, Wu C, et al. (2008) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles as controlled release drug delivery and gene transfection carriers. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 60: 1278–1288. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2008.03.012
    [54] Vivero-Escoto JL, Slowing II, Trewyn BG, et al. (2010) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for intracellular controlled drug delivery. Small 6: 1952–1967. doi: 10.1002/smll.200901789
    [55] Belmoujahid Y, Bonne M, Scudeller Y, et al. (2015) SBA-15 mesoporous silica as a super insulating material. Eur Phys J Special Topics 224: 1775–1785. doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2015-02498-3
    [56] Vargas-Osorio Z, González-Gómez MA, Piñeiro Y, et al. (2017) Novel synthetic routes of large-pore magnetic mesoporous nanocomposites (SBA-15/Fe3O4) as potential multifunctional theranostic nanodevices. J Mater Chem B 5: 9395–9404. doi: 10.1039/C7TB01963G
    [57] Vargas-Osorio Z, Chanes-Cuevas OA, Pérez-Soria A, et al. (2017) Physicochemical effects of amino- or sulfur-functional groups onto SBA-15 sol-gel synthesized mesoporous ceramic material. Phys Status Solidi C 14: 1600099.
    [58] Kresge CT, Leonowicz ME, Roth WJ, et al. (1992) Ordered mesoporous molecular sieves synthesized by a liquid-crystal template mechanism. Nature 359: 710–712. doi: 10.1038/359710a0
    [59] Vartuli JC, Schmitt KD, Kresge CT, et al. (1994) Effect of surfactant/silica molar ratios on the formation of mesoporous molecular sieves: inorganic mimicry of surfactant liquid-crystal phases and mechanistic implications. Chem Mater 6: 2317–2326. doi: 10.1021/cm00048a018
    [60] Kresge CT, Roth WJ (2013) The discovery of mesoporous molecular sieves from the twenty year perspective. Chem Soc Rev 42: 3663–3670. doi: 10.1039/c3cs60016e
    [61] Feliczak-Guzik A, Jadach B, Piotrowska H, et al. (2016) Synthesis and characterization of SBA-16 type mesoporous materials containing amine groups. Micropor Mesopor Mat 220: 231–238. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.09.006
    [62] Gonzalez G, Sagarzazu A, Cordova A, et al. (2017) Comparative study of two silica mesoporous materials (SBA-16 and SBA-15) modified with a hydroxyapatite layer for clindamycin controlled delivery. Micropor Mesopor Mat 256: 251–261.
    [63] Chang JS, Chang KLB, Hwang DF, et al. (2007) In vitro cytotoxicitiy of silica nanoparticles at high concentrations strongly depends on the metabolic activity type of the cell line. Environ Sci Technol 41: 2064–2068. doi: 10.1021/es062347t
    [64] Soler-Illia GJAA, Sanchez C, Lebeau B, et al. (2002) Chemical strategies to design textured materials:  from microporous and mesoporous oxides to nanonetworks and hierarchical structures. Chem Rev 102: 4093–4138. doi: 10.1021/cr0200062
    [65] Eliaz N, Metoki N (2017) Calcium phosphate bioceramics: a review of their history, structure, properties, coating technologies and biomedical applications. Materials 10: 334. doi: 10.3390/ma10040334
    [66] Ambrosio L, Guarino V, Sanginario V, et al. (2012). Injectable calcium phosphate based composites for skeletal bone treatments. Biomed Mater 7: 024113.
    [67] Guarino V, Ambrosio L (2013) Thermoset composite hydrogels for bone/intervertebral disc interface. Mater Lett 110: 249–252. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2013.08.046
    [68] Vallet-Regí M, Manzano-García M, Colilla M (2012) Biocompatible and bioactive mesoporous ceramics, In: Vallet-Regí M, Manzano-García M, Colilla M, Biomedical Applications of Mesoporous Ceramics: Drug Delivery, Smart Materials and Bone Tissue Engineering, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1–66.
    [69] Samavedi S, Whittington AR, Goldstein AS (2013) Calcium phosphate ceramics in bone tissue engineering: a review of properties and their influence on cell behavior. Acta Biomater 9: 8037–8045. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.06.014
    [70] Ishikawa K (2014) Calcium phosphate cement, In: Ben-Nissan B, Advances in Calcium Phosphate Biomaterials, Springer, 199–227.
    [71] Ambard AJ, Mueninghoff L (2006) Calcium phosphate cement: review of mechanical and biological properties. J Prosthodont 15: 321–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00129.x
    [72] Coti KK, Belowich ME, Liong M, et al. (2009) Mechanised nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nanoscale 1: 16–39. doi: 10.1039/b9nr00162j
    [73] Vallet-Regi M, Rámila A, del Real RP, et al. (2001) A new property of MCM-41:  drug delivery system. Chem Mater 13: 308–311. doi: 10.1021/cm0011559
    [74] Balas F, Manzano M, Horcajada P, et al. (2006) Confinement and controlled release of bisphosphonates on ordered mesoporous silica-based materials. J Am Chem Soc 128: 8116–8117. doi: 10.1021/ja062286z
    [75] Vallet-Regí M, Ruiz-González L, Izquierdo-Barba I, et al. (2006) Revisiting silica based ordered mesoporous materials: medical applications. J Mater Chem 16: 26–31. doi: 10.1039/B509744D
    [76] Mourino V, Boccaccini AR (2010) Bone tissue engineering therapeutics: controlled drug delivery in three-dimensional scaffolds. J R Soc Interface 7: 209–227. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2009.0379
    [77] Werner J, Sa S (2008) Hierarchical pore structure of calcium phosphate scaffolds by a combination of gel-casting and multiple tape-casting methods. Acta Biomater 4: 913–922. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.02.005
    [78] Vallet-Regí M (2008) Current trends on porous inorganic materials for biomedical applications. Chem Eng J 137: 1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2007.10.015
    [79] Baeza A, Izquierdo-Barba I, Vallet-Regí M (2010) Biotinylation of silicon-doped hydroxyapatite: a new approach to protein fixation for bone tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater 6: 743–749. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.09.004
    [80] Dorozhkin SV (2015) Calcium orthophosphate-containing biocomposites and hybrid biomaterials for biomedical applications. J Funct Biomater 6: 708–832. doi: 10.3390/jfb6030708
    [81] Perez RA, Kim HW, Ginebra MP (2012) Polymeric additives to enhance the functional properties of calcium phosphate cements. J Tissue Eng 3: 2041731412439555.
    [82] Deb P, Deoghare AB, Borah A, et al. (2018) Scaffold development using biomaterials : A review. Mater Today Proc 5: 12909–12919. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.02.276
    [83] Zarrin A, Moztarzadeh F (2018) Synthesizing and characterizing of gelatin-chitosan-bioactive glass (58s) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Silicon 10: 1393–1394. doi: 10.1007/s12633-017-9616-z
    [84] Wingender B, Bradley P, Saxena N, et al. (2016) Biomimetic organization of collagen matrices to template bone-like microstructures. Matrix Biol 52–54: 384–396.
    [85] Kang Z, Zhang X, Chen Y, et al. (2017) Preparation of polymer/calcium phosphate porous composite as bone tissue scaffolds. Mat Sci Eng C-Mater 70: 1125–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.04.008
    [86] Xu Y, Gao D, Feng P, et al. (2017) A mesoporous silica composite scaffold : Cell behaviors, biomineralization and mechanical properties. Appl Surf Sci 423: 314–321. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.05.236
    [87] Mondal S, Hoang G, Manivasagan P, et al. (2018) Nano-hydroxyapatite bioactive glass composite scaffold with enhanced mechanical and biological performance for tissue engineering application. Ceram Int 44: 15735–15746. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.05.248
    [88] Guarino V, Scaglione S, Sandri M, et al. (2014) MgCHA particles dispersion in porous PCL scaffolds: in vitro mineralization and in vivo bone formation. J Tissue Eng Regen M 8: 291–303. doi: 10.1002/term.1521
    [89] Scaglione S, Guarino V, Sandri M, et al. (2012) In vivo lamellar bone formation in fibre coated MgCHA–PCL-composite scaffolds. J Mater Sci-Mater M 23: 117–128. doi: 10.1007/s10856-011-4489-y
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Nimet Bölgen, Didem Demir, M. Serkan Yalçın, Sadin Özdemir, Development of Hypericum perforatum oil incorporated antimicrobial and antioxidant chitosan cryogel as a wound dressing material, 2020, 161, 01418130, 1581, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.056
    2. Arindam Banerjee, Subhayan Das, Mahitosh Mandal, Somenath Ganguly, Fluidic embedding of additional macroporosity in alginate-gelatin composite structure for biomimetic application, 2020, 31, 0920-5063, 2396, 10.1080/09205063.2020.1815278
    3. Cem Bayram, Xinyue Jiang, Merve Gultekinoglu, Sukru Ozturk, Kezban Ulubayram, Mohan Edirisinghe, Biofabrication of Gelatin Tissue Scaffolds with Uniform Pore Size via Microbubble Assembly, 2019, 304, 1438-7492, 1900394, 10.1002/mame.201900394
    4. Alejandra Rodriguez-Contreras, Carles Mas Moruno, Mariano Fernandez-Fairen, Elisa Rupérez, Francisco Javier Gil, José María Manero, 2021, 9780128188316, 229, 10.1016/B978-0-12-818831-6.00007-0
    5. Muhammad Saif Ur Rahman, Jiaen Wu, Hao Chen, Chengmei Sun, Ying Liu, Shanshan Xu, Matrix mechanophysical factor: pore size governs the cell behavior in cancer, 2023, 8, 2374-6149, 10.1080/23746149.2022.2153624
    6. Ahmed G. Abdelaziz, Hassan Nageh, Sara M. Abdo, Mohga S. Abdalla, Asmaa A. Amer, Abdalla Abdal-hay, Ahmed Barhoum, A Review of 3D Polymeric Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: Principles, Fabrication Techniques, Immunomodulatory Roles, and Challenges, 2023, 10, 2306-5354, 204, 10.3390/bioengineering10020204
    7. Durgalakshmi Dhinasekaran, Selvaraj Vimalraj, Ajay Rakkesh Rajendran, Sekaran Saravanan, Bargavi Purushothaman, Balakumar Subramaniam, Bio-inspired multifunctional collagen/electrospun bioactive glass membranes for bone tissue engineering applications, 2021, 126, 09284931, 111856, 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111856
    8. Yi Ren, Guolei Zhang, Longbin Yang, Yanwei Hu, Xiaojing Nie, Zhibin Jiang, Dawei Wang, Zhifan Wu, Study on seafloor hydrothermal systems circulation flow and heat transfer characteristics, 2022, 19, 1551-0018, 6186, 10.3934/mbe.2022289
    9. Pujhitha Ramesh, Nicholas Moskwa, Zachary Hanchon, Adam Koplas, Deirdre A Nelson, Kristen L Mills, James Castracane, Melinda Larsen, Susan T Sharfstein, Yubing Xie, Engineering cryoelectrospun elastin-alginate scaffolds to serve as stromal extracellular matrices, 2022, 14, 1758-5082, 035010, 10.1088/1758-5090/ac6b34
    10. Vijay Shankar Kumawat, Sanchita Bandyopadhyay-Ghosh, Subrata Bandhu Ghosh, An overview of translational research in bone graft biomaterials, 2023, 34, 0920-5063, 497, 10.1080/09205063.2022.2127143
    11. John D. Kechagias, Materials for Additive Manufacturing, 2022, 9, 2372-0484, 785, 10.3934/matersci.2022048
    12. Suna He, Haofeng Pan, Junyang Zhang, Advances of typical mesoporous materials and the application in drug delivery, 2023, 10, 2053-1591, 042001, 10.1088/2053-1591/acc82d
    13. Mohamed Selim, Hamouda M. Mousa, G.T. Abdel-Jaber, Ahmed Barhoum, Abdalla Abdal-hay, Innovative designs of 3D scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration: Understanding principles and addressing challenges, 2024, 215, 00143057, 113251, 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2024.113251
    14. Didem Demir, Potential use of extracted flax seed mucilage in the construction of macroporous cryo-scaffolds, 2024, 19, 1748-6041, 055002, 10.1088/1748-605X/ad5bad
    15. Jana Musílková, Miloš Beran, Antonín Sedlář, Petr Slepička, Martin Bartoš, Zdeňka Kolská, Šárka Havlíčková, Jitka Luňáčková, Lucie Svobodová, Martin Froněk, Martin Molitor, Hynek Chlup, Lucie Bačáková, Composite Polylactide/Polycaprolactone Foams with Hierarchical Porous Structure for Pre-Vascularized Tissue Engineering, 2025, 26, 1422-0067, 2974, 10.3390/ijms26072974
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7211) PDF downloads(1088) Cited by(15)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(3)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog