Bioprinting is an emerging field in regenerative medicine. Producing cell-laden, three-dimensional structures to mimic bodily tissues has an important role not only in tissue engineering, but also in drug delivery and cancer studies. Bioprinting can provide patient-specific spatial geometry, controlled microstructures and the positioning of different cell types for the fabrication of tissue engineering scaffolds. In this brief review, the different fabrication techniques: laser-based, extrusion-based and inkjet-based bioprinting, are defined, elaborated and compared. Advantages and challenges of each technique are addressed as well as the current research status of each technique towards various tissue types. Nozzle-based techniques, like inkjet and extrusion printing, and laser-based techniques, like stereolithography and laser-assisted bioprinting, are all capable of producing successful bioprinted scaffolds. These four techniques were found to have diverse effects on cell viability, resolution and print fidelity. Additionally, the choice of materials and their concentrations were also found to impact the printing characteristics. Each technique has demonstrated individual advantages and disadvantages with more recent research conduct involving multiple techniques to combine the advantages of each technique.

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) has become a clinically standard modality for the treatment of localized jawbone defects. Barrier membranes play an important role in this process by preventing soft tissue invasion outgoing from the mucosa and creating an underlying space to support bone growth. Different membrane types provide different biological mechanisms due to their different origins, preparation methods and structures. Among them, collagen membranes have attracted great interest due to their excellent biological properties and desired bone regeneration results to non-absorbable membranes even without a second surgery for removal. This work provides a comparative summary of common barrier membranes used in GBR, focusing on recent advances in collagen membranes and their biological mechanisms. In conclusion, the review article highlights the biological and regenerative properties of currently available barrier membranes with a particular focus on bioresorbable collagen-based materials. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of these biomaterials are highlighted, and possible improvements for future material developments are summarized.

Bioprinting is the process of creating three-dimensional structures consisting of biomaterials, cells, and biomolecules. The current additive manufacturing techniques, inkjet-, extrusion-, and laser-based, create hydrogel structures for cellular encapsulation and support. The requirements for each technique, as well as the technical challenges of printing living cells, are discussed and compared. This review encompasses the current research of bioprinting for tissue engineering and its potential for creating tissue-mimicking structures.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become an important tool in the field of tissue engineering and its further development will lead to completely new clinical possibilities. The ability to create tissue scaffolds with controllable characteristics, such as internal architecture, porosity, and interconnectivity make it highly desirable in comparison to conventional techniques, which lack a defined structure and repeatability between scaffolds. Furthermore, 3D printing allows for the production of scaffolds with patient-specific dimensions using computer-aided design. The availability of commercially available 3D printed permanent implants is on the rise; however, there are yet to be any commercially available biodegradable/bioresorbable devices. This review will compare the main 3D printing techniques of: stereolithography; selective laser sintering; powder bed inkjet printing and extrusion printing; for the fabrication of biodegradable/bioresorbable bone tissue scaffolds; and, discuss their potential for dental applications, specifically augmentation of the alveolar ridge.

Collagen-based resorbable barrier membranes have been increasingly utilized for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), as an alternative to non-resorbable synthetic membranes that require a second surgical intervention for removal. One of the most important characteristics of a resorbable barrier membrane is its mechanical integrity that is required for space maintenance and its tissue integration that plays a crucial role in wound healing and bone augmentation. This study compares a commercially available porcine-derived sugar-crosslinked collagen membrane with two non-crosslinked collagen barrier membranes. The material analysis provides an insight into the influence of manufacturing on the microstructure. In vivo subcutaneous implantation model provides further information on the host tissue reaction of the barrier membranes, as well as their tissue integration patterns that involve cellular infiltration, vascularization, and degradation. The obtained histochemical and immunohistochemical results over three time points (10, 30, and 60 days) showed that the tissue response to the sugar crosslinked collagen membrane involves inflammatory macrophages in a comparable manner to the macrophages observed in the surrounding tissue of the control collagen-based membranes, which were proven as biocompatible. The tissue reactions to the barrier membranes were additionally compared to wounds from a sham operation. Results suggest wound healing properties of all the investigated barrier membranes. However, the sugar-crosslinked membrane lacked in cellular infiltration and transmembraneous vascularization, providing an exclusive barrier function in GBR. Moreover, this membrane maintained a similar swelling ratio over examined timepoints, which suggests a very slow degradation pattern and supports its barrier function. Based on the study results, which showed biocompatibility of the sugar crosslinked membrane and its stability up to 60 days post-implantation, it can be concluded that this membrane may be suitable for application in GBR as a biomaterial with exclusive barrier functionality, similar to non-resorbable options.

The present in vivo study analyses both the inflammatory tissue reactions and the bone healing capacity of a newly developed bone substitute material (BSM) based on xenogeneic bone substitute granules combined with hyaluronate (HY) as a water-binding molecule. The results of the hyaluronate containing bone substitute material (BSM) were compared to a control xenogeneic BSM of the same chemical composition and a sham operation group up to 16 weeks post implantationem. A major focus of the study was to analyze the residual hyaluronate and its effects on the material-dependent healing behavior and the inflammatory tissue responses. The study included 63 male Wistar rats using the calvaria implantation model for 2, 8, and 16 weeks post implantationem. Established and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-conforming histological, histopathological, and histomorphometrical analysis methods were conducted. The results showed that the new hyaluronate containing BSM was gradually integrated within newly formed bone up to the end of the study that ended in a condition of complete bone defect healing. Thereby, no differences to the healing capacity of the control BSM were found. However, the bone formation in both groups was continuously significantly higher compared to the sham operation group. Additionally, no differences in the (inflammatory) tissue response that was analyzed via qualitative and (semi-) quantitative methods were found. Interestingly, no differences were found between the numbers of pro- and anti-inflammatory macrophages between the three study groups over the entire course of the study. No signs of the HY as a water-binding part of the BSM were histologically detectable at any of the study time points, altogether the results of the present study show that HY allows for an optimal material-associated bone tissue healing comparable to the control xenogeneic BSM. The added HY seems to be degraded within a very short time period of less than 2 weeks so that the remaining BSM granules allow for a gradual osteoconductive bone regeneration. Additionally, no differences between the inflammatory tissue reactions in both material groups and the sham operation group were found. Thus, the new hyaluronate containing xenogeneic BSM and also the control BSM have been shown to be fully biocompatible without any differences regarding bone regeneration.