Bone regeneration is a critical area of regenerative medicine that faces significant challenges, such as bone defects and fractures. 3D printing offers a promising solution through customized scaffolds that mimic the natural architecture of bone and support tissue healing. Polylactic acid (PLA) is a biodegradable and biocompatible polymer widely used in biomedical 3D printing. Preclinical animal models are essential to evaluate the performance of PLA-based scaffolds before their clinical use.
This systematic review aimed to assess the current applications of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds for bone regeneration in animal models, focusing on PLA, animal models, biological performance, and in vivo outcomes.
A comprehensive search was conducted across databases, covering studies published between January 2009 and January 2025, following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they reported 3D-printed PLA scaffold constructs for bone regeneration that were validated in animal models. Data on the animal species, defect types, biomaterials, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed.
This review included 38 studies that used animal models, such as rodents, rabbits, canines, and sheep, to assess the performance of the 3D-printed PLA scaffolds. Cells and compounds such as hydroxyapatite, drugs, nanoparticles, proteins, and polymers enable active scaffold fabrication that enhances regeneration from 1 to 12 weeks on the defect created in the chosen animal model.
3D printing based on PLA offers significant potential for advancing bone regeneration, with promising preclinical outcomes in animal models. Further preclinical and clinical studies are required to confirm the safety, effectiveness, and scalability for human applications.
Citation: Rafael Álvarez-Chimal, Lucía Pérez-Sánchez, Janeth Serrano-Bello, Febe Carolina Vázquez-Vázquez, Marco Antonio Álvarez-Pérez. 3D printing with polylactic acid (PLA) in bone regeneration using animal models: a systematic review[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2025, 12(4): 453-472. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2025022
Bone regeneration is a critical area of regenerative medicine that faces significant challenges, such as bone defects and fractures. 3D printing offers a promising solution through customized scaffolds that mimic the natural architecture of bone and support tissue healing. Polylactic acid (PLA) is a biodegradable and biocompatible polymer widely used in biomedical 3D printing. Preclinical animal models are essential to evaluate the performance of PLA-based scaffolds before their clinical use.
This systematic review aimed to assess the current applications of 3D-printed PLA scaffolds for bone regeneration in animal models, focusing on PLA, animal models, biological performance, and in vivo outcomes.
A comprehensive search was conducted across databases, covering studies published between January 2009 and January 2025, following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they reported 3D-printed PLA scaffold constructs for bone regeneration that were validated in animal models. Data on the animal species, defect types, biomaterials, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed.
This review included 38 studies that used animal models, such as rodents, rabbits, canines, and sheep, to assess the performance of the 3D-printed PLA scaffolds. Cells and compounds such as hydroxyapatite, drugs, nanoparticles, proteins, and polymers enable active scaffold fabrication that enhances regeneration from 1 to 12 weeks on the defect created in the chosen animal model.
3D printing based on PLA offers significant potential for advancing bone regeneration, with promising preclinical outcomes in animal models. Further preclinical and clinical studies are required to confirm the safety, effectiveness, and scalability for human applications.
| [1] |
Henkel J, Woodruff MA, Epari DR, et al. (2013) Bone regeneration based on tissue engineering conceptions—a 21st century perspective. Bone Res 1: 216-248. https://doi.org/10.4248/BR201303002 
|
| [2] |
De Pace R, Molinari S, Mazzoni E, et al. (2025) Bone regeneration: a review of current treatment strategies. J Clin Med 14: 1838. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061838
|
| [3] |
Tracy T, Wu L, Liu X, et al. (2023) 3D printing: innovative solutions for patients and pharmaceutical industry. Int J Pharm 631: 122480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.122480
|
| [4] |
Gao Y, Lalevée J, Simon-Masseron A (2023) An overview on 3D printing of structured porous materials and their applications. Adv Mater Technol 8: 2300377. https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.202300377
|
| [5] |
Szwed-Georgiou A, Płociński P, Kupikowska-Stobba B, et al. (2023) Bioactive materials for bone regeneration: biomolecules and delivery systems. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 9: 5222-5254. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00609
|
| [6] |
Tosca EM, Ronchi D, Facciolo D, et al. (2023) Replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal experiments in anticancer drug development: the contribution of 3D in vitro cancer models in the drug efficacy assessment. Biomedicines 11: 1058. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11041058
|
| [7] |
Balla E, Daniilidis V, Karlioti G, et al. (2021) Balla E, Daniilidis V, Karlioti G, et al. Poly (lactic Acid): a versatile biobased polymer for the future with multifunctional properties—from monomer synthesis, polymerization techniques and molecular weight increase to PLA applications. Polymers 13: 1822. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13111822
|
| [8] |
Wu Y, Gao X, Wu J, et al. (2023) Biodegradable polylactic acid and its composites: characteristics, processing, and sustainable applications in sports. Polymers 15: 3096. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15143096
|
| [9] |
Södergård A, Stolt M (2002) Properties of lactic acid based polymers and their correlation with composition. Prog Polym Sci 27: 1123-1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6700(02)00012-6
|
| [10] |
Gunathilake TMSU, Ching YC, Chuah CH, et al. (2020) Electro-stimulated release of poorly water-soluble drug from poly (lactic acid)/carboxymethyl cellulose/ZnO nanocomposite film. Pharm Res 37: 178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-020-02910-z
|
| [11] |
Kronemberger GS, Palhares TN, Rossi AM, et al. (2023) A synergic strategy: adipose-derived stem cell spheroids seeded on 3D-printed PLA/CHA scaffolds implanted in a bone critical-size defect model. J Funct Biomater 14: 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14120555
|
| [12] |
Salehi S, Ghomi H, Hassanzadeh-Tabrizi SA, et al. (2025) Antibacterial and osteogenic properties of chitosan-polyethylene glycol nanofibre-coated 3D printed scaffold with vancomycin and insulin-like growth factor-1 release for bone repair. Int J Biol Macromol 298: 139883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.139883
|
| [13] |
Kazemi N, Hassanzadeh-Tabrizi SA, Koupaei N, et al. (2024) Highly porous sildenafil loaded polylactic acid/polyvinylpyrrolidone based 3D printed scaffold containing forsterite nanoparticles for craniofacial reconstruction. Int J Biol Macromol 282: 137255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.137255
|
| [14] |
Zhang X, Lou Q, Wang L, et al. (2019) Immobilization of BMP-2-derived peptides on 3D-printed porous scaffolds for enhanced osteogenesis. Biomedical Materials 15: 015002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/ab4c78
|
| [15] |
Garot C, Schoffit S, Monfoulet C, et al. (2023) 3D-printed osteoinductive polymeric scaffolds with optimized architecture to repair a sheep metatarsal critical-size bone defect. Adv Healthc Mater 12: 2301692. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202301692
|
| [16] |
Hong YR, Kim T-H, Lee K, et al. (2023) Bioactive bone substitute in a rabbit ulna model: preclinical study. Tissue Eng Regen Med 20: 1205-1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-023-00591-4
|
| [17] |
Salehi S, Ghomi H, Hassanzadeh-Tabrizi SA, et al. (2024) 3D printed polylactic acid/polyethylene glycol/bredigite nanocomposite scaffold enhances bone tissue regeneration via promoting osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Int J Biol Macromol 281: 136160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.136160
|
| [18] |
Oryan A, Hassanajili S, Sahvieh S (2021) Effectiveness of a biodegradable 3D polylactic acid/poly(ɛ-caprolactone)/hydroxyapatite scaffold loaded by differentiated osteogenic cells in a critical-sized radius bone defect in rat. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 15: 150-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.3158
|
| [19] | Shuai C, Yang W, Feng P, et al. (2021) Accelerated degradation of HAP/PLLA bone scaffold by PGA blending facilitates bioactivity and osteoconductivity. Bioact Mater 6: 490-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.09.001 |
| [20] |
Zhang H, Mao X, Du Z, et al. (2016) Three dimensional printed macroporous polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for promoting bone formation in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model. Sci Technol Adv Mater 17: 136-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/14686996.2016.1145532
|
| [21] |
Tcacencu I, Rodrigues N, Alharbi N, et al. (2018) Osseointegration of porous apatite-wollastonite and poly(lactic acid) composite structures created using 3D printing techniques. Mater Sci Eng 90: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.022
|
| [22] |
Bahraminasab M, Doostmohammadi N, Talebi A, et al. (2022) 3D printed polylactic acid/gelatin-nano-hydroxyapatite/platelet-rich plasma scaffold for critical-sized skull defect regeneration. Biomed Eng Online 21: 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-022-01056-w
|
| [23] |
Wang Y, Zhou X, Jiang J, et al. (2025) Carboxymethyl chitosan-enhanced multi-level microstructured composite hydrogel scaffolds for bone defect repair. Carbohydr Polym 348: 122847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122847
|
| [24] |
Mukherjee P, Roy S, Ghosh D, et al. (2022) Role of animal models in biomedical research: a review. Lab Anim Res 38: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42826-022-00128-1
|
| [25] |
Ribitsch I, Baptista PM, Lange-Consiglio A, et al. (2020) Large animal models in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering: to do or not to do. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 8: 972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00972
|
| [26] |
Schemitsch EH (2017) Size matters: defining critical in bone defect size!. J Orthop Trauma 31: S20-S22. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000978
|
| [27] |
Nauth A, Schemitsch E, Norris B, et al. (2018) Critical-size bone defects: is there a consensus for diagnosis and treatment?. J Orthop Trauma 32: S7-S11. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001115
|
| [28] |
Pérez-Sánchez L, Ortiz de la O MA, González-Alva P, et al. (2021) In vivo study on bone response to 3D-printed constructs designed from microtomographic images. J Mater Eng Perform 30: 5005-5012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-05585-8
|
| [29] |
Fernández IA, Haugen HJ, Nogueira LP, et al. (2024) Bone regeneration in rabbit cranial defects: 3D printed polylactic acid scaffolds gradually enriched with marine bioderived calcium phosphate. Materialia (Oxf) 38: 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtla.2024.102240
|
| [30] |
Yun J, Heo S, Lee M, et al. (2019) Evaluation of a poly(lactic-acid) scaffold filled with poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite nanofibres for reconstruction of a segmental bone defect in a canine model. Vet Med (Praha) 64: 531-538. https://doi.org/10.17221/80/2019-VETMED
|
| [31] |
Hou N, Du X, Wu S (2022) Advances in pig models of human diseases. Animal Model Exp Med 5: 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/ame2.12223
|
| [32] |
Vandamme T (2014) Use of rodents as models of human diseases. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 6: 2. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.124301
|
| [33] |
Gomes PS, Fernandes MH (2011) Rodent models in bone-related research: the relevance of calvarial defects in the assessment of bone regeneration strategies. Lab Anim 45: 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1258/la.2010.010085
|
| [34] |
Schlund M, Depeyre A, Kotagudda Ranganath S, et al. (2022) Rabbit calvarial and mandibular critical-sized bone defects as an experimental model for the evaluation of craniofacial bone tissue regeneration. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 123: 601-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.12.001
|
| [35] |
Thomas B, Bhat K, Mapara M (2012) Rabbit as an animal model for experimental research. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 9: 111. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.92960
|
| [36] |
Dias IR, Viegas CA, Carvalho PP (2018) Large animal models for osteochondral regeneration. Osteochondral Tissue Engineering: Challenges, Current Strategies, and Technological Advances . Cham: Springer 441-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76735-2_20
|
| [37] |
Kim C, Um Y, Chai J, et al. (2011) A canine model for histometric evaluation of periodontal regeneration. Periodontol 2000 56: 209-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00372.x
|
| [38] |
de Silva L, Longoni A, Staubli F, et al. (2023) Bone regeneration in a large animal model featuring a modular off-the-shelf soft callus mimetic. Adv Healthc Mater 12: 2301717. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202301717
|
| [39] |
Cha M, Jin Y-Z, Park JW, et al. (2021) Three-dimensional printed polylactic acid scaffold integrated with BMP-2 laden hydrogel for precise bone regeneration. Biomater Res 25: 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-021-00233-7
|
| [40] |
Van Norman GA (2019) Limitations of animal studies for predicting toxicity in clinical trials. JACC Basic Transl Sci 4: 845-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008
|
| [41] |
van der Laan JW (2000) Current status and use of short/medium-term models for assessment of carcinogenicity of human pharmaceuticals: regulatory perspectives. Toxicol Lett 112–113: 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4274(99)00228-3
|
| [42] |
Feng P, Jia J, Liu M, et al. (2021) Degradation mechanisms and acceleration strategies of poly (lactic acid) scaffold for bone regeneration. Mater Des 210: 110066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110066
|
| [43] |
Tie S, Chen Y, Tan M (2024) An evaluation of animal models for using bioactive compounds in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Food Front 5: 474-493. https://doi.org/10.1002/fft2.360
|
| [44] |
Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. (2014) SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 14: 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43
|
| [45] |
Anbu RT, Suresh V, Gounder R, et al. (2019) Comparison of the efficacy of three different bone regeneration materials: an animal study. Eur J Dent 13: 022-028. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688735
|
| [46] |
Yao X, Yang X, Lu Y, et al. (2024) Review of the synthesis and degradation mechanisms of some biodegradable polymers in natural environments. Polymers 17: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17010066
|
| [47] |
Wang W, Wang L, Zhang B, et al. (2024) 3D printing of personalized magnesium composite bone tissue engineering scaffold for bone and angiogenesis regeneration. Chem Eng J 484: 149444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.149444
|
| [48] |
Yetiş F, Liu X, Sampson WW, et al. (2023) Biodegradation of composites of polylactic acid and microfibrillated lignocellulose. J Polym Environ 31: 698-708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-022-02583-2
|
| [49] | Barbeck M, Serra T, Booms P, et al. (2017) Analysis of the in vitro degradation and the in vivo tissue response to bi-layered 3D-printed scaffolds combining PLA and biphasic PLA/bioglass components – guidance of the inflammatory response as basis for osteochondral regeneration. Bioact Mater 2: 208-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.06.001 |
| [50] |
Zhang Y, Fang M, Zhu J, et al. (2024) Exosome-loaded hyaluronic acid hydrogel composite with oxygen-producing 3D printed polylactic acid scaffolds for bone tissue repair and regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol 274: 132970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.132970
|
| [51] |
Alavi MS, Memarpour S, Pazhohan-Nezhad H, et al. (2023) Applications of poly(lactic acid) in bone tissue engineering: a review article. Artif Organs 47: 1423-1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14612
|
| [52] | Hu X, Lin Z, He J, et al. (2022) Recent progress in 3D printing degradable polylactic acid-based bone repair scaffold for the application of cancellous bone defect. MedComm Biomate Appl 1: e14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mba2.14 |
| [53] |
Salehi Namini M, Mohandesnezhad S, Mohandesnezhad S, et al. (2025) Enhancing bone regeneration using kaempferol as an osteoprotective compound: signaling mechanisms, delivery strategies, and potential applications. J Biol Eng 19: 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-025-00545-5
|
| [54] | Farjaminejad S, Farjaminejad R, Hasani M, et al. (2025) Innovative drug delivery systems in bone regeneration: benefits and applications in tissue engineering. J Bionic Eng 2025: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-025-00739-z |
| [55] |
Radha G, Manjubaashini N, Balakumar S (2023) Nano-hydroxyapatite/natural polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a brief review of recent trend. In Vitro Models 2: 125-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44164-023-00049-w
|
| [56] |
Shineh G, Mobaraki M, Afzali E, et al. (2024) Antimicrobial metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in bone tissue repair. Biomed Mater Devices 2: 918-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44174-024-00159-3
|
| [57] |
Álvarez-Chimal R, Arenas-Alatorre JÁ, Álvarez-Pérez MA (2024) Nanoparticle-polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. A review. Eur Polym J 213: 113093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2024.113093
|
| [58] |
Liu Y-Y, Echeverry-Rendón M (2025) 3D-printed biodegradable polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering: an overview, current stage and future perspectives. Next Mater 8: 100647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxmate.2025.100647
|
| [59] |
Fan D, Staufer U, Accardo A (2019) Engineered 3D polymer and hydrogel microenvironments for cell culture applications. Bioengineering 6: 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering6040113
|
| [60] |
Zarrintaj P, Seidi F, Youssefi Azarfam M, et al. (2023) Biopolymer-based composites for tissue engineering applications: a basis for future opportunities. Compos B Eng 258: 110701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110701
|
| [61] |
Zhou G, Xu R, Groth T, et al. (2024) The combination of bioactive herbal compounds with biomaterials for regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 30: 607-630. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2024.0002
|
| [62] |
Sodré LI, Gall MEC, Elias M de B, et al. (2025) Osteogenic effects of bioactive compounds found in fruits on mesenchymal stem cells: a review. Nutr Rev 83: 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae209
|
| [63] |
Guo Q, Yang S, Ni G, et al. (2023) The preparation and effects of organic–inorganic antioxidative biomaterials for bone repair. Biomedicines 12: 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12010070
|
| [64] |
Tollemar V, Collier ZJ, Mohammed MK, et al. (2016) Stem cells, growth factors and scaffolds in craniofacial regenerative medicine. Genes Dis 3: 56-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gendis.2015.09.004
|
| [65] |
Chatakun P, Núñez-Toldrà R, Díaz López EJ, et al. (2014) The effect of five proteins on stem cells used for osteoblast differentiation and proliferation: a current review of the literature. Cell Mol Life Sci 71: 113-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-013-1326-0
|
| [66] |
Storti G, Scioli MG, Kim B-S, et al. (2019) Adipose-derived stem cells in bone tissue engineering: useful tools with new applications. Stem Cells Int 2019: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3673857
|
| [67] |
Simon F, Oberhuber A, Schelzig H (2015) Advantages and disadvantages of different animal models for studying ischemia/reperfusion injury of the spinal cord. Eur J Vasc Endovasc 49: 744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.03.041
|
| [68] |
Moran CJ, Ramesh A, Brama PAJ, et al. (2016) The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in cartilage repair. J Exp Orthop 3: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-015-0037-x
|
| [69] |
Collins MN, Zamboni F, Serafin A, et al. (2022) Emerging scaffold- and cellular-based strategies for brain tissue regeneration and imaging. In vitro models 1: 129-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44164-022-00013-0
|
| [70] |
Sundelacruz S, Kaplan DL (2009) Stem cell- and scaffold-based tissue engineering approaches to osteochondral regenerative medicine. Semin Cell Dev Biol 20: 646-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.03.017
|
| [71] |
Rashidi N, Tamaddon M, Liu C (2024) Protein-based scaffolds for musculoskeletal tissue repair and regeneration. Handbook of the Extracellular Matrix . Cham: Springer International Publishing 237-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56363-8_12
|
| [72] |
Atkins JT, George GC, Hess K, et al. (2020) Pre-clinical animal models are poor predictors of human toxicities in phase 1 oncology clinical trials. Br J Cancer 123: 1496-1501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-01033-x
|
| [73] |
Ruan Y, Robinson NB, Khan FM, et al. (2020) The translation of surgical animal models to human clinical research: a cross-sectional study. Int J Surg 77: 25-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.023
|
| [74] |
Li Y, Chen S-K, Li L, et al. (2015) Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials. J Orthop Translat 3: 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2015.05.002
|
| [75] |
Webber MJ, Khan OF, Sydlik SA, et al. (2015) A perspective on the clinical translation of scaffolds for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 43: 641-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-014-1104-7
|
Figures(6) / Tables(4)
Rafael Álvarez-Chimal, Lucía Pérez-Sánchez, Janeth Serrano-Bello, Febe Carolina Vázquez-Vázquez, Marco Antonio Álvarez-Pérez. 3D printing with polylactic acid (PLA) in bone regeneration using animal models: a systematic review[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2025, 12(4): 453-472. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2025022
DownLoad: