Clinically Relevant Bioprinting Workflow and Imaging Process for Tissue Construct Design and Validation
Source abstract
Abstract
As technologies have advanced around medical imaging and additive manufacturing, intersections are producing enabling technologies that augment the medical sciences. Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting, in particular, is emerging as a promising enabling technology for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications. In this study, we developed a workflow to take 3D medical images and utilized them for bone construct design, bioprinting, and in vivo validation. Medical imaging and 3D bioprinting strategy converged to allow the fabrication of a structure with complex shape and inner architecture based on patient anatomy and biomimicry. The workflow demonstrated the power of the technological intersection and the need for further software development to harness and, eventually, explore potential clinical applications. The outcome of this study validated the concept that patient-specific anatomy could be translated to 3D bioprinting strategy through medical imaging and image processing software with strong clinical relevance.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Anatomy and Medical Technology · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Wake Forest University-Virginia Tech, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Materialise USA, Plymouth, Michigan.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1088/1748-6041/8/1/01020110.1088/1748-6041/8/1/010201 ↗
2. 10.1126/scitranslmed.300489010.1126/scitranslmed.3004890 ↗
3. 10.1089/15491680432310505310.1089/154916804323105053 ↗
4. 10.1093/ejcts/ezu14810.1093/ejcts/ezu148 ↗
5. 10.1038/nbt.295810.1038/nbt.2958 ↗
6. 10.1002/adfm.20150342310.1002/adfm.201503423 ↗
7. Zheng SX · 2017 · 1535
8. 10.1016/j.joms.2015.04.01910.1016/j.joms.2015.04.019 ↗
9. 10.1038/nbt.341310.1038/nbt.3413 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.00810.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.008 ↗
11. 10.1038/nbt.350310.1038/nbt.3503 ↗
12. 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.07.00910.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.07.009 ↗
13. 10.1002/jmri.2552610.1002/jmri.25526 ↗
14. 10.1088/1758-5090/7/3/03500310.1088/1758-5090/7/3/035003 ↗
15. 10.1088/0960-1317/17/1/01910.1088/0960-1317/17/1/019 ↗
16. 10.1088/1758-5082/4/1/01500510.1088/1758-5082/4/1/015005 ↗
17. 10.1097/00003086-200202000-0000910.1097/00003086-200202000-00009 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.07610.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.076 ↗
19. 10.3109/1052029920911004610.3109/10520299209110046 ↗
20. 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v40.i5.1010.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v40.i5.10 ↗
21. 10.1089/ten.2006.039410.1089/ten.2006.0394 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.04210.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.042 ↗
23. Chandra P · Biomark Insights · 2015 · 10 · 105