Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Trends in 3D Printing, Bioprosthetics, and Tissue Engineering in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Plastic Surgery (D. Otterburn, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

3D printing represents a developing technology whose applications in plastic and reconstructive science are only in its dawn, creating devices of limitless customization presenting the possibility for uniquely tailored implantable devices for the individual patient. The advent of tissue engineering presents exciting new possibilities for conventional 3D printing in that novel approaches to reconstruction can be attempted with bioactive molecules and tissues for advanced wound healing, thereby resulting in a dramatic reduction in implantable device morbidity with improved esthetic results. The marriage of these two technologies has resulted in the creation of bioprosthetics, a field in which bioactive molecules are structured into implantable prosthetic devices through 3D printing of cells harvested or engineered in the laboratory. The historical context of conventional 3D printing modalities as well as tissue engineering is presented for discussion in the greater context of the creation of modern bioprosthetics. An outline of common materials, methods, and their utility is also introduced to serve as a framework to better understand the continuing advancements in implantable devices with examples of continuing discoveries discussed where appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. • Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY, Chen C. Spence DM. Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences. Anal Chem 2014;86:3240–53. This paper provides background on the technologies used for 3D printing, introduces to the reader the.STL file format (Standard Tessellation Language or STereoLithography), the common language for CAD/CAD software and 3D printers and expands on biological uses of 3D printing extensively.

  2. Hoy MB. 3D printing: making things at the library. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32:94–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. • Marro A, Bandukwala T, Mak W. Three-dimensional printing and medical imaging: a review of the methods and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2015. In this review the authors provide a general overview of the potential uses, process and limitation of 3D printing from medical imaging data including 3D bioprinting.

  4. • Teo EY, Ong SY, Chong MS, et al. Polycaprolactone-based fused deposition modeled mesh for delivery of antibacterial agents to infected wounds. Biomaterials 2011;32:279-87. This study presented the use of 3D printed antibiotic delivery system used in vivo, although the system was used in mice it is groundbreaking research as it applies 3D printing in a very common pathology to provide clinical improvement and at the same time reducing systemic exposure to antibiotic. It is also one of the earlier uses of 3D printing in vivo where the printed system is not used as structural component to provide a scaffold for the own body to heal, instead it a functional drug delivery system.

  5. Klein GT, Lu Y, Wang MY. 3D printing and neurosurgery–ready for prime time? World Neurosurg. 2013;80:233–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schubert C, van Langeveld MC, Donoso LA. Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:159–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Ventola CL. Medical Applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. P T 2014;39:704–11. This article focuses on the current uses of 3D printing in medicine; briefly discussing bioprinitng tissue and organs, custom implants and prostheses, anatomical models for surgical preparation, drug delivery devices (unique dosage forms) and describes some of the current barriers and controversies, including safety, regulatory concerns and potential copyright and patent issues.

  8. Michalski MH, Ross JS. The shape of things to come: 3D printing in medicine. JAMA. 2014;312:2213–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baden T, Chagas AM, Gage G, Marzullo T, Prieto-Godino LL, Euler T. Open Labware: 3-D Printing Your Own Lab Equipment. PLoS Biology 2015;13.

  10. Chae MP, Rozen WM, McMenamin PG, Findlay MW, Spychal RT, Hunter-Smith DJ. Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic surgery. Front Surg. 2015;2:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lipson H. New world of 3-D printing offers “completely new ways of thinking”: Q&A with author, engineer, and 3-D printing expert Hod Lipson. IEEE Pulse. 2013;4:12–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hull CW. Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography. Google Patents; 1986.

  13. • Gauvin R, Chen YC, Lee JW, et al. Microfabrication of complex porous tissue engineering scaffolds using 3D projection stereolithography. Biomaterials 2012;33:3824–34. Projection stereolithography (PSL) is introduced in this paper. PSL was develop to build 3D scaffolds using gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) to improve inner structure of the scaffold compared to the top down printing methods. Initial testing shows PSL to be a promising method to create scaffolds for tissue engineering.

  14. Lee KW, Wang S, Fox BC, Ritman EL, Yaszemski MJ, Lu L. Poly(propylene fumarate) bone tissue engineering scaffold fabrication using stereolithography: effects of resin formulations and laser parameters. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8:1077–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seck TM, Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW. Designed biodegradable hydrogel structures prepared by stereolithography using poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(d, l-lactide)-based resins. J Contro Release. 2010;148:34–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Park JH, Jung JW, Kang HW, Cho DW. Indirect three-dimensional printing of synthetic polymer scaffold based on thermal molding process. Biofabrication. 2014;6:025003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. •• Chia HN, Wu BM. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng 2015;9:4. This is, until now, the most up-to-date and comprehensive review of 3D biomaterials used in 3D printing.

  18. Almquist TA, Smalley DR. Thermal stereolithography. Google Patents; 1992.

  19. Deckard CR. Method and apparatus for producing parts by selective sintering. Google Patents; 1989.

  20. Rengier F, Mehndiratta A, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2010;5:335–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tan KH, Chua CK, Leong KF, et al. Selective laser sintering of biocompatible polymers for applications in tissue engineering. Bio-Med Mater Eng. 2005;15:113–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wiria FE, Leong KF, Chua CK, Liu Y. Poly-epsilon-caprolactone/hydroxyapatite for tissue engineering scaffold fabrication via selective laser sintering. Acta Biomater. 2007;3:1–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu F-H, Lee R-T, Lin W-H, Liao Y-S. Selective laser sintering of bio-metal scaffold. Procedia CIRP. 2013;5:83–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sachs EM, Haggerty JS, Cima MJ, Williams PA. Three-dimensional printing techniques. Google Patents; 1993.

  25. Abarrategi A, Moreno-Vicente C, Martinez-Vazquez FJ, et al. Biological properties of solid free form designed ceramic scaffolds with BMP-2: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. PLoS One. 2012;7:e34117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Shanjani Y, De Croos JN, Pilliar RM, Kandel RA, Toyserkani E. Solid freeform fabrication and characterization of porous calcium polyphosphate structures for tissue engineering purposes. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;93:510–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tarafder S, Davies NM, Bandyopadhyay A, Bose S. 3D printed tricalcium phosphate scaffolds: Effect of SrO and MgO doping on osteogenesis in a rat distal femoral defect model. Biomater Sci. 2013;1:1250–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tarafder S, Dernell WS, Bandyopadhyay A, Bose S. SrO- and MgO-doped microwave sintered 3D printed tricalcium phosphate scaffolds: mechanical properties and in vivo osteogenesis in a rabbit model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015;103:679–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Crump SS. Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects. Google Patents; 1992.

  30. Cohen A, Laviv A, Berman P, Nashef R, Abu-Tair J. Mandibular reconstruction using stereolithographic 3-dimensional printing modeling technology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108:661–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Korpela J, Kokkari A, Korhonen H, Malin M, Narhi T, Seppala J. Biodegradable and bioactive porous scaffold structures prepared using fused deposition modeling. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101:610–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. • Yen HJ, Tseng CS, Hsu SH, Tsai CL. Evaluation of chondrocyte growth in the highly porous scaffolds made by fused deposition manufacturing (FDM) filled with type II collagen. Biomed Microdevices 2009;11:615–24. In the process of creating newly engineered tissues it is imperative to have adequate distribution of the living cells seeded on the scaffolds. This experiment created highly porous poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) scaffolds using the fused deposition manufacturing (FDM) process and modified by type II collagen. The seeded chondrocytes chondrocytes were well distributed in the interior of the scaffolds with large fiber spacing and neocartilage was formed around the scaffolds, proving to be another successful step in the process to ultimately create off-the-shelf tissues.

  33. Kim J, McBride S, Tellis B, et al. Rapid-prototyped PLGA/beta-TCP/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite scaffolds in a rabbit femoral defect model. Biofabrication. 2012;4:025003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chae MP, Hunter-Smith DJ, De-Silva I, Tham S, Spychal RT, Rozen WM. Four-dimensional (4D) printing: a new evolution in computed tomography-guided stereolithographic modeling principles and application. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2015;31:458–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dunn RM. Cross-linking in biomaterials: a primer for clinicians. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:18S–26S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Carpentier A. From valvular xenograft to valvular bioprosthesis (1965–1977). Med Instrum. 1977;11:98–101.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carpentier A, Lemaigre G, Robert L, Carpentier S, Dubost C. Biological factors affecting long-term results of valvular heterografts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1969;58:467–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Butler CE. The role of bioprosthetics in abdominal wall reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2006;33:199–211 v–vi.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Liang HC, Chang Y, Hsu CK, Lee MH, Sung HW. Effects of crosslinking degree of an acellular biological tissue on its tissue regeneration pattern. Biomaterials. 2004;25:3541–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Daghighi S, Sjollema J, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Rochford ET. Infection resistance of degradable versus non-degradable biomaterials: an assessment of the potential mechanisms. Biomaterials. 2013;34:8013–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. •• Kim JJ, Evans GR. Applications of biomaterials in plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg 2012;39:359–76. In this overview soft tissue fillers, bioengineered skins, acellular dermal matrices, biomaterials for craniofacial surgery, and peripheral nerve repair are discussed. It also summarizes indications, properties, uses, types, advantages and disadvantages of some of the currently available products from each category.

  42. Widgerow AD. Bioengineered matrices–part 2: focal adhesion, integrins, and the fibroblast effect. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:574–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wainwright DJ, Bury SB. Acellular dermal matrix in the management of the burn patient. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:13S–23S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Banyard DA, Bourgeois JM, Widgerow AD, Evans GR. Regenerative biomaterials: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1740–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Askari M, Cohen MJ, Grossman PH, Kulber DA. The use of acellular dermal matrix in release of burn contracture scars in the hand. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1593–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shahrokhi S, Arno A, Jeschke MG. The use of dermal substitutes in burn surgery: acute phase. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22:14–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Brien JA, Ignotz R, Montilla R, Broderick GB, Christakis A, Dunn RM. Long-term histologic and mechanical results of a permacol abdominal wall explant. Hernia. 2011;15:211–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Saini M, Singh Y, Arora P, Arora V, Jain K. Implant biomaterials: a comprehensive review. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3:52–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Tschernitschek H, Borchers L, Geurtsen W. Nonalloyed titanium as a bioinert metal–a review. Quintessence Int. 2005;36:523–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sykaras N, Iacopino AM, Marker VA, Triplett RG, Woody RD. Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:675–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M, Corsi E, Anello T. Titanium-zirconium alloy narrow-diameter implants (Straumann Roxolid((R))) for the rehabilitation of horizontally deficient edentulous ridges: prospective study on 18 consecutive patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1136–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993;260:920–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. MacArthur BD, Oreffo RO. Bridging the gap. Nature. 2005;433:19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim WS, Vacanti JP, Cima L, et al. Cartilage engineered in predetermined shapes employing cell transplantation on synthetic biodegradable polymers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;94:233–7 discussion 8–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bodnar AG, Ouellette M, Frolkis M, et al. Extension of life-span by introduction of telomerase into normal human cells. Science. 1998;279:349–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cassidy JW. Nanotechnology in the regeneration of complex tissues. Bone Tissue Regen Insights. 2014;5:25–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Pislaru SV, Harbuzariu A, Agarwal G, et al. Magnetic forces enable rapid endothelialization of synthetic vascular grafts. Circulation. 2006;114:I314–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang SF, Shen L, Zhang WD, Tong YJ. Preparation and mechanical properties of chitosan/carbon nanotubes composites. Biomacromolecules. 2005;6:3067–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gui X, Cao A, Wei J, et al. Soft, highly conductive nanotube sponges and composites with controlled compressibility. ACS Nano. 2010;4:2320–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang S, Uludag H. Nanoparticulate systems for growth factor delivery. Pharm Res. 2009;26:1561–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fan D, Yin Z, Cheong R, et al. Subcellular-resolution delivery of a cytokine through precisely manipulated nanowires. Nat Nanotechnol. 2010;5:545–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Wu S, Liu X, Hu T, et al. A biomimetic hierarchical scaffold: natural growth of nanotitanates on three-dimensional microporous Ti-based metals. Nano Lett. 2008;8:3803–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pan Z, Ding J. Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) porous scaffolds for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Interface Focus. 2012;2:366–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Liao CJ, Chen CF, Chen JH, Chiang SF, Lin YJ, Chang KY. Fabrication of porous biodegradable polymer scaffolds using a solvent merging/particulate leaching method. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;59:676–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Harris LD, Kim BS, Mooney DJ. Open pore biodegradable matrices formed with gas foaming. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;42:396–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. • Haugh MG, Murphy CM, O’Brien FJ. Novel freeze-drying methods to produce a range of collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds with tailored mean pore sizes. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2010;16:887–94. Pore size is an important aspect of scaffold design. This study applies modifications to the freeze-drying cycle to produce a variety of collagen-glycosan scaffolds with a wide range of mean pore sizes. Adding to the arsenal of techniques that can be used to create and modify the inner structure of scaffolds.

  67. Ziabicki A. Fundamentals of fibre formation : the science of fibre spinning and drawing. London: Wiley; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  68. •• Coutinho D, Costa P, Neves N, Gomes M, Reis R. Micro- and Nanotechnology in Tissue Engineering. In: Pallua N, Suscheck CV, eds. Tissue Engineering: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011:3–29. This is a comprehensive chapter discussing recent developments regarding micro and nanotechnologies and their applications in tissue engineering. This technologies are necessary to improve the structure and therefore functionality of scaffolds. These technologies can be used to study and control the phenomena occurring at the cellular microenvironment.

  69. Ma PX, Elisseeff JH. Scaffolding in tissue engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor&Francis; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Melchels F, Wiggenhauser PS, Warne D, et al. CAD/CAM-assisted breast reconstruction. Biofabrication. 2011;3:034114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kang HW, Park JH, Kang TY, Seol YJ, Cho DW. Unit cell-based computer-aided manufacturing system for tissue engineering. Biofabrication. 2012;4:015005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. • Koch L, Kuhn S, Sorg H, et al. Laser printing of skin cells and human stem cells. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2010;16:847–54. Laser printing based on laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT) is a new and promising biofabrication technique for the arrangement of biological materials or living cells. In this study LIFT was used to print cell with high potential in regeneration (skin and mesechymal cells) to evaluate the influence of LIFT on the cells. The results showed high transfer rate and no increase of apoptosis or DNA fragmentation. These results show that LIFT will be a promising method for ex vivo cell printing.

  73. Choi JW, Kim N. Clinical application of three-dimensional printing technology in craniofacial plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42:267–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. D’Urso PS, Earwaker WJ, Barker TM, et al. Custom cranioplasty using stereolithography and acrylic. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:200–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Parthasarathy J. 3D modeling, custom implants and its future perspectives in craniofacial surgery. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014;4:9–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Wurm G, Tomancok B, Holl K, Trenkler J. Prospective study on cranioplasty with individual carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) implants produced by means of stereolithography. Surg Neurol. 2004;62:510–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sutradhar A, Park J, Carrau D, Miller MJ. Experimental validation of 3D printed patient-specific implants using digital image correlation and finite element analysis. Comput Biol Med. 2014;52:8–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Chen S-T, Chang C-J, Su W-C, Chang L-W, Chu IH, Lin M-S. 3-D titanium mesh reconstruction of defective skull after frontal craniectomy in traumatic brain injury. Injury. 2015;46:80–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. • Saijo H, Igawa K, Kanno Y, et al. Maxillofacial reconstruction using custom-made artificial bones fabricated by inkjet printing technology. Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs 2009;12:200–5. Mandibular reconstruction is one of the most complex reconstructions performed in the wide spectrum of the reconstructive surgery practice. The complex three-dimensional shape, requiring multiple osteotomies that can impair blood flow, the need for enough bone to support implants, occasional need to reconstruct the condyle and the morbidity associated with the donor site (usually fibula) make this a complex issue. This study present 3D printing of artificial bones and implanted them in ten patients with maxillofacial deformities. Findings in this study provide support for further clinical studies of the inkjet-printed custom-made artificial bones.

  80. Klammert U, Gbureck U, Vorndran E, Rodiger J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Kubler AC. 3D powder printed calcium phosphate implants for reconstruction of cranial and maxillofacial defects. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010;38:565–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Li J, Hsu Y, Luo E, Khadka A, Hu J. Computer-aided design and manufacturing and rapid prototyped nanoscale hydroxyapatite/polyamide (n-HA/PA) construction for condylar defect caused by mandibular angle ostectomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:636–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. • Levine JP, Patel A, Saadeh PB, Hirsch DL. Computer-aided design and manufacturing in craniomaxillofacial surgery: the new state of the art. The Journal of craniofacial surgery 2012;23:288–93. This paper illustrates a clear clinical advantage in the use of 3D printing as an aid in surgery, in this case, mandibular reconstruction. For bone grafts to be used in mandibular reconstruction there is no disadvantage and many very well defined advantages of using osteotomy guides (that need to be generated with CT reconstructions). Therefore it is ideal for all mandibular reconstruction with free bone graft to use 3D printed osteotomy guides. At the moment there a few of these clear-cut clinical applications of 3D printing in surgery, reason why we find this paper of importance.

  83. Hirsch DL, Garfein ES, Christensen AM, Weimer KA, Saddeh PB, Levine JP. Use of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing to produce orthognathically ideal surgical outcomes: a paradigm shift in head and neck reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:2115–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Xu Y, Fan F, Kang N, et al. Tissue engineering of human nasal alar cartilage precisely by using three-dimensional printing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:451–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Bos EJ, Scholten T, Song Y, et al. Developing a parametric ear model for auricular reconstruction: a new step towards patient-specific implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:390–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Chae MP, Lin F, Spychal RT, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. 3D-printed haptic “reverse” models for preoperative planning in soft tissue reconstruction: a case report. Microsurgery. 2015;35:148–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Gillis JA, Morris SF. Three-dimensional printing of perforator vascular anatomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:80e–2e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Fuller SM, Butz DR, Vevang CB, Makhlouf MV. Application of 3-dimensional printing in hand surgery for production of a novel bone reduction clamp. J Hand Surg. 2014;39:1840–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Cui X, Dean D, Ruggeri ZM, Boland T. Cell damage evaluation of thermal inkjet printed Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2010;106:963–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Ozbolat IT, Yu Y. Bioprinting toward organ fabrication: challenges and future trends. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60:691–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Cui X, Boland T, D’Lima DD, Lotz MK. Thermal inkjet printing in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul. 2012;6:149–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. • Michael S, Sorg H, Peck CT, et al. Tissue engineered skin substitutes created by laser-assisted bioprinting form skin-like structures in the dorsal skin fold chamber in mice. PLoS One 2013;8:e57741. The authors utilized a laser-assisted bioprinting (LaBP) technique to create a fully cellularized skin substitute allowing printing different cell types in a 3D spatial pattern. It was then implanted into full thickness wound of mice. Their results showed tissue formation in vivo on the construct. This technique overcomes a very important hurdle in the journey for 3D printing complex tissues.

  93. • Bertassoni LE, Cecconi M, Manoharan V, et al. Hydrogel bioprinted microchannel networks for vascularization of tissue engineering constructs. Lab Chip 2014;14:2202–11. Blood supply to newly engineered tissues is barrier in transplantation. In this study the authors created vascular networks in hydrogels and demonstrated the functionality of the fabricated vascular networks in improving mass transport, cellular viability and differentiation within the cell-laden tissue constructs. Also formation of endothelial monolayers within the fabricated channels was confirmed. This is a breakthrough in tissue engineering of complex tissues.

  94. Saijo H, Igawa K, Kanno Y, et al. Maxillofacial reconstruction using custom-made artificial bones fabricated by inkjet printing technology. J Artif Organs. 2009;12:200–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA

    Cesar Colasante

  2. Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine (JCESOM), Marshall University, Huntington, WV, 25701, USA

    Zachary Sanford

  3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA

    Evan Garfein & Oren Tepper

Authors
  1. Cesar Colasante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zachary Sanford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evan Garfein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oren Tepper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesar Colasante.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Plastic Surgery.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Colasante, C., Sanford, Z., Garfein, E. et al. Current Trends in 3D Printing, Bioprosthetics, and Tissue Engineering in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Curr Surg Rep 4, 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-016-0127-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-016-0127-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation