Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A review on biocompatibility nature of hydrogels with 3D printing techniques, tissue engineering application and its future prospective

  • Review
  • Published:
Bio-Design and Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, tissue engineering (TE) is one of the fast growing research fields due the accessibility of extra-molecular matrix (ECM) at cellular and molecular level with valuable potential prospective of hydrogels. The enhancement in the production of hydrogel-based cellular scaffolds with the structural composition of ECM has been accelerated with involvement of rapid prototyping techniques. Basically, the recreation of ECM has been derived from naturally existed or synthetic hydrogel-based polymers. The rapid utilization of hydrogels in TE puts forward the scope of bioprinting for the fabrication of the functional biological tissues, cartilage, skin and artificial organs. The main focus of the researchers is on biofabrication of the biomaterials with maintaining the biocompatibility, biodegradability and increasing growth efficiency. In this review, biological development in the structure and cross-linking connections of natural or synthetic hydrogels are discussed. The methods and design criteria that influence the chemical and mechanical properties and interaction of seeding cells before and after the implantations are also demonstrated. The methodology of bioprinting techniques along with recent development has also been reviewed. In the end, some capabilities and shortcomings are pointed out for further development of hydrogels-based scaffolds and selection of bioprinting technology depending on their application.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Isla N et al (2010) Introduction to tissue engineering and application for cartilage engineering. Bio-Med Mater Eng 20(3–4):127–133

    Google Scholar 

  2. Organ donation and transplantation statistics: graph data (2017). https://www.organdonor.gov/statistics-stories/statistics/data.html. Accessed 27 September 2018

  3. Sears NA, Seshadri DR, Dhavalikar PS, Cosgriff-Hernandez E (2016) A review of three-dimensional printing in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 22(4):298–310

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lee CH, Singla A, Lee Y (2001) Biomedical applications of collagen. Int J Pharm 221(1–2):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  5. Majola A et al (1991) Absorption, biocompatibility, and fixation properties of polylactic acid in bone tissue: an experimental study in rats. Clin Orthop Relat Res 268:260–269

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu J (2010) Bioactive modification of poly (ethylene glycol) hydrogels for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 31(17):4639–4656

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gorgieva S, Kokol V (2011) In: Pignatello R (ed) Collagen-vs. gelatine-based biomaterials and their biocompatibility: review and perspectives. Biomaterials applications for nanomedicine. InTech, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sreejit P, Verma R (2013) Natural ECM as biomaterial for scaffold based cardiac regeneration using adult bone marrow derived stem cells. Stem Cell Rev Rep 9(2):158–171

    Google Scholar 

  9. Slaughter BV, Khurshid SS, Fisher OZ, Khademhosseini A, Peppas NA (2009) Hydrogels in regenerative medicine. Adv Mater 21(32–33):3307–3329

    Google Scholar 

  10. O’brien FJ (2011) Biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today 14(3):88–95

    Google Scholar 

  11. Velema J, Kaplan D (2006) Biopolymer-based biomaterials as scaffolds for tissue engineering. In: Lee K, Kaplan D (eds) Tissue engineering I. Springer, Berlin, pp 187–238

    Google Scholar 

  12. Place ES, Evans ND, Stevens MM (2009) Complexity in biomaterials for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 8(6):457

    Google Scholar 

  13. Singh SR (2009) Principles of regenerative medicine. Ann Biomed Eng 37(12):2658–2659

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan B, Leong K (2008) Scaffolding in tissue engineering: general approaches and tissue-specific considerations. Eur Spine J 17(4):467–479

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson JM (2001) Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 31(1):81–110

    Google Scholar 

  16. Paleos GA (2012) What are hydrogels. Retr Oct 11:215

    Google Scholar 

  17. Li X et al (2014) 3D-printed biopolymers for tissue engineering application. Int J Polym Sci 2014:1

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bajaj P, Schweller RM, Khademhosseini A, West JL, Bashir R (2014) 3D biofabrication strategies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 16:247–276

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hutmacher DW (2006) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. In: Williams D (ed) The biomaterials: silver jubilee compendium. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 175–189

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wang H, Yang Z (2012) Short-peptide-based molecular hydrogels: novel gelation strategies and applications for tissue engineering and drug delivery. Nanoscale 4(17):5259–5267

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gomes M et al (2013) Natural polymers in tissue engineering applications. In: Ad EA, Sin A (eds) Handbook of biopolymers and biodegradable plastics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 385–425

    Google Scholar 

  22. Weadock KS, Miller EJ, Bellincampi LD, Zawadsky JP, Dunn MG (1995) Physical crosslinking of collagen fibers: comparison of ultraviolet irradiation and dehydrothermal treatment. J Biomed Mater Res 29(11):1373–1379

    Google Scholar 

  23. Park S-N, Park J-C, Kim HO, Song MJ, Suh H (2002) Characterization of porous collagen/hyaluronic acid scaffold modified by 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide cross-linking. Biomaterials 23(4):1205–1212

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tangsadthakun C, Kanokpanont S, Sanchavanakit N, Banaprasert T, Damrongsakkul S (2017) Properties of collagen/chitosan scaffolds for skin tissue engineering. J Metals Mater Miner 16(1):37–44

    Google Scholar 

  25. DeLustro F, Condell RA, Nguyen MA, McPherson JM (1986) A comparative study of the biologic and immunologic response to medical devices derived from dermal collagen. J Biomed Mater Res 20(1):109–120

    Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor PM, Cass AE, Yacoub MH (2006) Extracellular matrix scaffolds for tissue engineering heart valves. Progr Pediatr Cardiol 21(2):219–225

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cavallo JA et al (2015) Remodeling characteristics and collagen distributions of biologic scaffold materials biopsied from postmastectomy breast reconstruction sites. Ann Plast Surg 75(1):74

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hahn MS, Teply BA, Stevens MM, Zeitels SM, Langer R (2006) Collagen composite hydrogels for vocal fold lamina propria restoration. Biomaterials 27(7):1104–1109

    Google Scholar 

  29. Joosten E, Veldhuis W, Hamers F (2004) Collagen containing neonatal astrocytes stimulates regrowth of injured fibers and promotes modest locomotor recovery after spinal cord injury. J Neurosci Res 77(1):127–142

    Google Scholar 

  30. Calabrese G et al (2017) Combination of collagen-based scaffold and bioactive factors induces adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells chondrogenic differentiation in vitro. Front Physiol 8:50

    Google Scholar 

  31. Calabrese G et al (2016) Collagen-hydroxyapatite scaffolds induce human adipose derived stem cells osteogenic differentiation in vitro. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0151181

    Google Scholar 

  32. Calabrese G et al (2016) Bone augmentation after ectopic implantation of a cell-free collagen-hydroxyapatite scaffold in the mouse. Sci Rep 6:36399

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu B, Li W, Lewis RV, Segre CU, Wang R (2014) E-spun composite fibers of collagen and dragline silk protein: fiber mechanics, biocompatibility, and application in stem cell differentiation. Biomacromol 16(1):202–213

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nakada A et al (2013) Manufacture of a weakly denatured collagen fiber scaffold with excellent biocompatibility and space maintenance ability. Biomed Mater 8(4):045010

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chen Z et al (2016) Comparison of the properties of collagen–chitosan scaffolds after γ-ray irradiation and carbodiimide cross-linking. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 27(10):937–953

    Google Scholar 

  36. Einerson NJ, Stevens KR, Kao WJ (2003) Synthesis and physicochemical analysis of gelatin-based hydrogels for drug carrier matrices. Biomaterials 24(3):509–523

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shin H, Olsen BD, Khademhosseini A (2012) The mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of cell-laden double-network hydrogels based on photocrosslinkable gelatin and gellan gum biomacromolecules. Biomaterials 33(11):3143–3152

    Google Scholar 

  38. Li D et al (2014) Enhanced biocompatibility of PLGA nanofibers with gelatin/nano-hydroxyapatite bone biomimetics incorporation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6(12):9402–9410

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jaiswal A, Chhabra H, Soni V, Bellare J (2013) Enhanced mechanical strength and biocompatibility of electrospun polycaprolactone-gelatin scaffold with surface deposited nano-hydroxyapatite. Mater Sci Eng, C 33(4):2376–2385

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pok S, Myers JD, Madihally SV, Jacot JG (2013) A multilayered scaffold of a chitosan and gelatin hydrogel supported by a PCL core for cardiac tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 9(3):5630–5642

    Google Scholar 

  41. Singh RS, Saini GK, Kennedy JF (2010) Covalent immobilization and thermodynamic characterization of pullulanase for the hydrolysis of pullulan in batch system. Carbohyd Polym 81(2):252–259

    Google Scholar 

  42. Singh RS, Saini GK, Kennedy JF (2010) Maltotriose syrup preparation from pullulan using pullulanase. Carbohyd Polym 80(2):401–407

    Google Scholar 

  43. Singh RS, Saini GK, Kennedy JF (2011) Continuous hydrolysis of pullulan using covalently immobilized pullulanase in a packed bed reactor. Carbohyd Polym 83(2):672–675

    Google Scholar 

  44. Singh RS, Saini GK, Kennedy JF (2008) Pullulan: microbial sources, production and applications. Carbohyd Polym 73(4):515–531

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thirumavalavan K, Manikkadan T, Dhanasekar R (2009) Pullulan production from coconut by-products by Aureobasidium pullulans. Afr J Biotech 8(2):254–258

    Google Scholar 

  46. Machy D, Jozefonvicz J, Letourneur D (2006) Vascular prosthesis impregnated with crosslinked dextran, ed.: Google Patents

  47. Arora A, Sharma P, Katti DS (2015) Pullulan-based composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: improved osteoconductivity by pore wall mineralization. Carbohyd Polym 123:180–189

    Google Scholar 

  48. Fraser J, Laurent T, Laurent U (1997) Hyaluronan: its nature, distribution, functions and turnover. J Intern Med 242(1):27–33

    Google Scholar 

  49. Noble PW (2002) Hyaluronan and its catabolic products in tissue injury and repair. Matrix Biol 21(1):25–29

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Platt VM, Szoka FC Jr (2008) Anticancer therapeutics: targeting macromolecules and nanocarriers to hyaluronan or CD44, a hyaluronan receptor. Mol Pharm 5(4):474–486

    Google Scholar 

  51. Toole BP (2004) Hyaluronan: from extracellular glue to pericellular cue. Nat Rev Cancer 4(7):528

    Google Scholar 

  52. Flynn TC, Sarazin D, Bezzola A, Terrani C, Micheels P (2011) Comparative histology of intradermal implantation of mono and biphasic hyaluronic acid fillers. Dermatol Surg 37(5):637–643

    Google Scholar 

  53. Park K, Kim H, Kim B (2014) Comparative study of hyaluronic acid fillers by in vitro and in vivo testing. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 28(5):565–568

    Google Scholar 

  54. Stern R, Asari AA, Sugahara KN (2006) Hyaluronan fragments: an information-rich system. Eur J Cell Biol 85(8):699–715

    Google Scholar 

  55. Moreland LW (2003) Intra-articular hyaluronan (hyaluronic acid) and hylans for the treatment of osteoarthritis: mechanisms of action. Arthritis Res Ther 5(2):54

    Google Scholar 

  56. Elzoghby AO (2013) Gelatin-based nanoparticles as drug and gene delivery systems: reviewing three decades of research. J Controlled Release 172(3):1075–1091

    Google Scholar 

  57. Shin H, Olsen BD, Khademhosseini A (2014) Gellan gum microgel-reinforced cell-laden gelatin hydrogels. J Mater Chem B 2(17):2508–2516

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jalaja K, Kumar PA, Dey T, Kundu SC, James NR (2014) Modified dextran cross-linked electrospun gelatin nanofibres for biomedical applications. Carbohyd Polym 114:467–475

    Google Scholar 

  59. Han F, Dong Y, Su Z, Yin R, Song A, Li S (2014) Preparation, characteristics and assessment of a novel gelatin–chitosan sponge scaffold as skin tissue engineering material. Int J Pharm 476(1–2):124–133

    Google Scholar 

  60. Anderson JM, Miller KM (1984) Biomaterial biocompatibility and the macrophage. Biomaterials 5(1):5–10

    Google Scholar 

  61. Carpena NT, Min Y-K, Lee B-T (2015) Improved in vitro biocompatibility of surface-modified hydroxyapatite sponge scaffold with gelatin and BMP-2 in comparison against a commercial bone allograft. ASAIO J 61(1):78–86

    Google Scholar 

  62. Singh R, Saini G (2008) Pullulan-hyperproducing color variant strain of Aureobasidium pullulans FB-1 newly isolated from phylloplane of Ficus sp. Biores Technol 99(9):3896–3899

    Google Scholar 

  63. Singh RS, Saini GK (2008) Production, purification and characterization of pullulan from a novel strain of Aureobasidium pullulans FB-1. J Biotechnol 136:S506–S507

    Google Scholar 

  64. Singh RS, Saini GK, Kennedy JF (2009) Downstream processing and characterization of pullulan from a novel colour variant strain of Aureobasidium pullulans FB-1. Carbohyd Polym 78(1):89–94

    Google Scholar 

  65. Aschenbrenner E et al (2013) Using the polymeric ouzo effect for the preparation of polysaccharide-based nanoparticles. Langmuir 29(28):8845–8855

    Google Scholar 

  66. WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1062/hyaluronic-acid. Accessed 12 September 2018

  67. Sahapaibounkit P, Prasertsung I, Mongkolnavin R, Wong CS, Damrongsakkul S (2017) A two-step method using air plasma and carbodiimide crosslinking to enhance the biocompatibility of polycaprolactone. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 105(6):1658–1666

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kemençe N, Bölgen N (2017) Gelatin-and hydroxyapatite-based cryogels for bone tissue engineering: synthesis, characterization, in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 11(1):20–33

    Google Scholar 

  69. Fujiwara J, Takahashi M, Hatakeyama T, Hatakeyama H (2000) Gelation of hyaluronic acid through annealing. Polym Int 49(12):1604–1608

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kim DH, Martin JT, Elliott DM, Smith LJ, Mauck RL (2015) Phenotypic stability, matrix elaboration and functional maturation of nucleus pulposus cells encapsulated in photocrosslinkable hyaluronic acid hydrogels. Acta Biomater 12:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jiang D, Liang J, Noble PW (2007) Hyaluronan in tissue injury and repair. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 23:435–461

    Google Scholar 

  72. Collins MN, Birkinshaw C (2013) Hyaluronic acid based scaffolds for tissue engineering—a review. Carbohyd Polym 92(2):1262–1279

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rogero SO, Malmonge SM, Lugão AB, Ikeda TI, Miyamaru L, Cruz ÁS (2003) Biocompatibility study of polymeric biomaterials. Artif Organs 27(5):424–427

    Google Scholar 

  74. Dhandayuthapani B, Yoshida Y, Maekawa T, Kumar DS (2011) Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application: a review. Int J Polym Sci 2011:290602

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gunatillake PA, Adhikari R (2003) Biodegradable synthetic polymers for tissue engineering. Eur Cell Mater 5(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  76. Gentile P, Chiono V, Carmagnola I, Hatton PV (2014) An overview of poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA)-based biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci 15(3):3640–3659

    Google Scholar 

  77. Moran JM, Pazzano D, Bonassar LJ (2003) Characterization of polylactic acid–polyglycolic acid composites for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng 9(1):63–70

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ehashi T, Kakinoki S, Yamaoka T (2014) Water absorbing and quick degradable PLLA/PEG multiblock copolymers reduce the encapsulation and inflammatory cytokine production. J Artif Organs 17(4):321–328

    Google Scholar 

  79. Liu H, Slamovich EB, Webster TJ (2006) Less harmful acidic degradation of poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) bone tissue engineering scaffolds through titania nanoparticle addition. Int J Nanomed 1(4):541

    Google Scholar 

  80. Rogers CM, Deehan DJ, Knuth CA, Rose FR, Shakesheff KM, Oldershaw RA (2014) Biocompatibility and enhanced osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells in response to surface engineered poly (d, l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) microparticles. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 102(11):3872–3882

    Google Scholar 

  81. Nga NK, Hoai TT, Viet PH (2015) Biomimetic scaffolds based on hydroxyapatite nanorod/poly (d, l) lactic acid with their corresponding apatite-forming capability and biocompatibility for bone-tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B 128:506–514

    Google Scholar 

  82. Zong C et al (2014) Biocompatibility and bone-repairing effects: comparison between porous poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid and nano-hydroxyapatite/poly (lactic acid) scaffolds. J Biomed Nanotechnol 10(6):1091–1104

    Google Scholar 

  83. Alcantar NA, Aydil ES, Israelachvili JN (2000) Polyethylene glycol–coated biocompatible surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 51(3):343–351

    Google Scholar 

  84. Alexander A, Khan J, Saraf S, Saraf S (2013) Poly (ethylene glycol)–poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) based thermosensitive injectable hydrogels for biomedical applications. J Controlled Release 172(3):715–729

    Google Scholar 

  85. Hou Y, Schoener CA, Regan KR, Munoz-Pinto D, Hahn MS, Grunlan MA (2010) Photo-cross-linked PDMSstar-PEG hydrogels: synthesis, characterization, and potential application for tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomacromol 11(3):648–656

    Google Scholar 

  86. Yang F, Williams CG, Wang D-A, Lee H, Manson PN, Elisseeff J (2005) The effect of incorporating RGD adhesive peptide in polyethylene glycol diacrylate hydrogel on osteogenesis of bone marrow stromal cells. Biomaterials 26(30):5991–5998

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wang Y-Y, Lü L-X, Shi J-C, Wang H-F, Xiao Z-D, Huang N-P (2011) Introducing RGD peptides on PHBV films through PEG-containing cross-linkers to improve the biocompatibility. Biomacromol 12(3):551–559

    Google Scholar 

  88. Escudero-Castellanos A, Ocampo-García BE, Domínguez-García MV, Flores-Estrada J, Flores-Merino MV (2016) Hydrogels based on poly (ethylene glycol) as scaffolds for tissue engineering application: biocompatibility assessment and effect of the sterilization process. J Mater Sci - Mater Med 27(12):176

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cheng Y (2016) Poly (ethylene glycol)-polypeptide copolymer micelles for therapeutic agent delivery. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 17(3):212–226

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kim JA, Van Abel D (2015) Neocollagenesis in human tissue injected with a polycaprolactone-based dermal filler. J Cosmet Laser Ther 17(2):99–101

    Google Scholar 

  91. Moers-Carpi MM, Sherwood S (2013) Polycaprolactone for the correction of nasolabial folds: a 24-month, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Dermatol Surg 39(3pt1):457–463

    Google Scholar 

  92. Salgado CL, Sanchez EM, Zavaglia CA, Granja PL (2012) Biocompatibility and biodegradation of polycaprolactone-sebacic acid blended gels. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 100(1):243–251

    Google Scholar 

  93. Shalumon K, Anulekha K, Chennazhi KP, Tamura H, Nair S, Jayakumar R (2011) Fabrication of chitosan/poly (caprolactone) nanofibrous scaffold for bone and skin tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 48(4):571–576

    Google Scholar 

  94. Khandwekar AP, Patil DP, Shouche Y, Doble M (2011) Surface engineering of polycaprolactone by biomacromolecules and their blood compatibility. J Biomater Appl 26(2):227–252

    Google Scholar 

  95. Russo V et al (2016) Amniotic epithelial stem cell biocompatibility for electrospun poly (lactide-co-glycolide), poly (ε-caprolactone), poly (lactic acid) scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng, C 69:321–329

    Google Scholar 

  96. Cecen B, Kozaci D, Yuksel M, Erdemli D, Bagriyanik A, Havitcioglu H (2015) Biocompatibility of MG-63 cells on collagen, poly-l-lactic acid, hydroxyapatite scaffolds with different parameters. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 13(1):10–16

    Google Scholar 

  97. Zhao X-F, Li X-D, Kang Y-Q, Yuan Q (2011) Improved biocompatibility of novel poly (L-lactic acid)/β-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds prepared by an organic solvent-free method. Int J Nanomed 6:1385

    Google Scholar 

  98. Lee H-Y, Jin G-Z, Shin US, Kim J-H, Kim H-W (2012) Novel porous scaffolds of poly (lactic acid) produced by phase-separation using room temperature ionic liquid and the assessments of biocompatibility. J Mater Sci - Mater Med 23(5):1271–1279

    Google Scholar 

  99. Hidalgo I, Sojot F, Arvelo F, Sabino M (2013) Functional electrospun poly (lactic acid) scaffolds for biomedical applications: experimental conditions, degradation and biocompatibility study. Mol Cell Biomech MCB 10(2):85–105

    Google Scholar 

  100. Park J, Lakes RS (2007) Biomaterials: an introduction. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  101. Saffer EM, Tew GN, Bhatia SR (2011) Poly (lactic acid)-poly (ethylene oxide) block copolymers: new directions in self-assembly and biomedical applications. Curr Med Chem 18(36):5676–5686

    Google Scholar 

  102. Jeong B, Bae YH, Lee DS, Kim SW (1997) Biodegradable block copolymers as injectable drug-delivery systems. Nature 388(6645):860

    Google Scholar 

  103. Metters A, Anseth K, Bowman C (2000) Fundamental studies of a novel, biodegradable PEG-b-PLA hydrogel. Polymer 41(11):3993–4004

    Google Scholar 

  104. Mann BK, Gobin AS, Tsai AT, Schmedlen RH, West JL (2001) Smooth muscle cell growth in photopolymerized hydrogels with cell adhesive and proteolytically degradable domains: synthetic ECM analogs for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 22(22):3045–3051

    Google Scholar 

  105. Lee SY et al (2015) Synthesis and in vitro characterizations of porous carboxymethyl cellulose-poly (ethylene oxide) hydrogel film. Biomater Res 19(1):12

    Google Scholar 

  106. Burdick JA, Anseth KS (2002) Photoencapsulation of osteoblasts in injectable RGD-modified PEG hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 23(22):4315–4323

    Google Scholar 

  107. Bhavsar MD, Amiji MM (2008) Development of novel biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles-in-microsphere formulation for local plasmid DNA delivery in the gastrointestinal tract. AAPS PharmSciTech 9(1):288–294

    Google Scholar 

  108. Hajiali F, Tajbakhsh S, Shojaei A (2018) Fabrication and properties of polycaprolactone composites containing calcium phosphate-based ceramics and bioactive glasses in bone tissue engineering: a review. Polym Rev 58(1):164–207

    Google Scholar 

  109. Kweon H et al (2003) A novel degradable polycaprolactone networks for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 24(5):801–808

    Google Scholar 

  110. Sun H, Mei L, Song C, Cui X, Wang P (2006) The in vivo degradation, absorption and excretion of PCL-based implant. Biomaterials 27(9):1735–1740

    Google Scholar 

  111. Murphy SV, Atala A (2014) 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 32(8):773

    Google Scholar 

  112. Das S et al (2015) Bioprintable, cell-laden silk fibroin–gelatin hydrogel supporting multilineage differentiation of stem cells for fabrication of three-dimensional tissue constructs. Acta Biomater 11:233–246

    Google Scholar 

  113. Skardal A, Atala A (2015) Biomaterials for integration with 3-D bioprinting. Ann Biomed Eng 43(3):730–746

    Google Scholar 

  114. Rhee S, Puetzer JL, Mason BN, Reinhart-King CA, Bonassar LJ (2016) 3D bioprinting of spatially heterogeneous collagen constructs for cartilage tissue engineering. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2(10):1800–1805

    Google Scholar 

  115. Zehnder T, Sarker B, Boccaccini AR, Detsch R (2015) Evaluation of an alginate–gelatine crosslinked hydrogel for bioplotting. Biofabrication 7(2):025001

    Google Scholar 

  116. Leppiniemi J et al (2017) 3D-printable bioactivated nanocellulose–alginate hydrogels. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(26):21959–21970

    Google Scholar 

  117. Xu Y, Xia D, Han J, Yuan S, Lin H, Zhao C (2017) Design and fabrication of porous chitosan scaffolds with tunable structures and mechanical properties. Carbohyd Polym 177:210–216

    Google Scholar 

  118. Donderwinkel I, van Hest JC, Cameron NR (2017) Bio-inks for 3D bioprinting: recent advances and future prospects. Polym Chem 8(31):4451–4471

    Google Scholar 

  119. Kim JE, Kim SH, Jung Y (2016) Current status of three-dimensional printing inks for soft tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Regen Med 13(6):636–646

    Google Scholar 

  120. Malda J et al (2013) 25th anniversary article: engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater 25(36):5011–5028

    Google Scholar 

  121. Pedde RD et al (2017) Emerging biofabrication strategies for engineering complex tissue constructs. Adv Mater 29(19):1606061

    Google Scholar 

  122. Jungst T, Smolan W, Schacht K, Scheibel T, Groll JR (2015) Strategies and molecular design criteria for 3D printable hydrogels. Chem Rev 116(3):1496–1539

    Google Scholar 

  123. Xu T, Jin J, Gregory C, Hickman JJ, Boland T (2005) Inkjet printing of viable mammalian cells. Biomaterials 26(1):93–99

    Google Scholar 

  124. Tasoglu S, Demirci U (2013) Bioprinting for stem cell research. Trends Biotechnol 31(1):10–19

    Google Scholar 

  125. Lode A et al (2016) Additive manufacturing of collagen scaffolds by three-dimensional plotting of highly viscous dispersions. Biofabrication 8(1):015015

    Google Scholar 

  126. Kolesky DB, Homan KA, Skylar-Scott MA, Lewis JA (2016) Three-dimensional bioprinting of thick vascularized tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(12):3179–3184

    Google Scholar 

  127. Jia J et al (2014) Engineering alginate as bioink for bioprinting. Acta Biomater 10(10):4323–4331

    Google Scholar 

  128. Tabriz AG, Hermida MA, Leslie NR, Shu W (2015) Three-dimensional bioprinting of complex cell laden alginate hydrogel structures. Biofabrication 7(4):045012

    Google Scholar 

  129. Bertassoni LE et al (2014) Direct-write bioprinting of cell-laden methacrylated gelatin hydrogels. Biofabrication 6(2):024105

    Google Scholar 

  130. Colosi C et al (2016) Microfluidic bioprinting of heterogeneous 3D tissue constructs using low-viscosity bioink. Adv Mater 28(4):677–684

    Google Scholar 

  131. Ng WL, Yeong WY, Naing MW (2016) Polyelectrolyte gelatin-chitosan hydrogel optimized for 3D bioprinting in skin tissue engineering. Int J Bioprint 2(1):53–62

    Google Scholar 

  132. Wu Z, Su X, Xu Y, Kong B, Sun W, Mi S (2016) Bioprinting three-dimensional cell-laden tissue constructs with controllable degradation. Sci Rep 6:24474

    Google Scholar 

  133. Hinton TJ et al (2015) Three-dimensional printing of complex biological structures by freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels. Sci Adv 1(9):e1500758

    Google Scholar 

  134. Li H, Tan YJ, Leong KF, Li L (2017) 3D bioprinting of highly thixotropic alginate/methylcellulose hydrogel with strong interface bonding. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(23):20086–20097

    Google Scholar 

  135. Jin Y, Liu C, Chai W, Compaan A, Huang Y (2017) Self-supporting nanoclay as internal scaffold material for direct printing of soft hydrogel composite structures in air. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(20):17456–17465

    Google Scholar 

  136. Ding H, Chang RC (2018) Printability study of bioprinted tubular structures using liquid hydrogel precursors in a support bath. Appl Sci 8(3):403

    Google Scholar 

  137. Gao Q, He Y, Fu J-Z, Liu A, Ma L (2015) Coaxial nozzle-assisted 3D bioprinting with built-in microchannels for nutrients delivery. Biomaterials 61:203–215

    Google Scholar 

  138. Lee KY, Mooney DJ (2012) Alginate: properties and biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci 37(1):106–126

    Google Scholar 

  139. Lee H, Ahn S, Chun W, Kim G (2014) Enhancement of cell viability by fabrication of macroscopic 3D hydrogel scaffolds using an innovative cell-dispensing technique supplemented by preosteoblast-laden micro-beads. Carbohyd Polym 104:191–198

    Google Scholar 

  140. Ang T et al (2002) Fabrication of 3D chitosan–hydroxyapatite scaffolds using a robotic dispensing system. Mater Sci Eng, C 20(1–2):35–42

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  141. Kim YB et al (2016) Mechanically reinforced cell-laden scaffolds formed using alginate-based bioink printed onto the surface of a PCL/alginate mesh structure for regeneration of hard tissue. J Colloid Interface Sci 461:359–368

    Google Scholar 

  142. Calvert P (2007) Printing cells. Science 318(5848):208–209

    Google Scholar 

  143. Tse C et al (2016) Inkjet printing Schwann cells and neuronal analogue NG108-15 cells. Biofabrication 8(1):015017

    Google Scholar 

  144. Saunders RE, Gough JE, Derby B (2008) Delivery of human fibroblast cells by piezoelectric drop-on-demand inkjet printing. Biomaterials 29(2):193–203

    Google Scholar 

  145. Gudapati H, Dey M, Ozbolat I (2016) A comprehensive review on droplet-based bioprinting: past, present and future. Biomaterials 102:20–42

    Google Scholar 

  146. Derby B (2008) Bioprinting: inkjet printing proteins and hybrid cell-containing materials and structures. J Mater Chem 18(47):5717–5721

    Google Scholar 

  147. Campbell PG, Miller ED, Fisher GW, Walker LM, Weiss LE (2005) Engineered spatial patterns of FGF-2 immobilized on fibrin direct cell organization. Biomaterials 26(33):6762–6770

    Google Scholar 

  148. Boland T et al (2007) Drop-on-demand printing of cells and materials for designer tissue constructs. Mater Sci Eng, C 27(3):372–376

    Google Scholar 

  149. Boland T, Xu T, Damon B, Cui X (2006) Application of inkjet printing to tissue engineering. Biotechnol J Healthc Nutr Technol 1(9):910–917

    Google Scholar 

  150. Pardo L, Boland T (2003) A quantitative approach to studying structures and orientation at self-assembled monolayer/fluid interfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 257(1):116–120

    Google Scholar 

  151. Sun W, Darling A, Starly B, Nam J (2004) Computer-aided tissue engineering: overview, scope and challenges. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 39(1):29–47

    Google Scholar 

  152. Lemmo AV, Fisher JT, Geysen HM, Rose DJ (1997) Characterization of an inkjet chemical microdispenser for combinatorial library synthesis. Anal Chem 69(4):543–551

    Google Scholar 

  153. Okamoto T, Suzuki T, Yamamoto N (2000) Microarray fabrication with covalent attachment of DNA using bubble jet technology. Nat Biotechnol 18(4):438

    Google Scholar 

  154. Chrisey DB, McGill RA, Pique A (2001) Matrix assisted pulsed laser evaporation direct write, ed.: Google Patents

  155. Ringeisen BR, Othon CM, Barron JA, Young D, Spargo BJ (2006) Jet-based methods to print living cells. Biotechnol J Healthc Nutr Technol 1(9):930–948

    Google Scholar 

  156. Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 31(24):6121–6130

    Google Scholar 

  157. Soman P, Chung PH, Zhang AP, Chen S (2013) Digital microfabrication of user-defined 3D microstructures in cell-laden hydrogels. Biotechnol Bioeng 110(11):3038–3047

    Google Scholar 

  158. Odde DJ, Renn MJ (2000) Laser-guided direct writing of living cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 67(3):312–318

    Google Scholar 

  159. Colina M, Serra P, Fernández-Pradas JM, Sevilla L, Morenza JL (2005) DNA deposition through laser induced forward transfer. Biosens Bioelectron 20(8):1638–1642

    Google Scholar 

  160. Dinca V et al (2008) Directed three-dimensional patterning of self-assembled peptide fibrils. Nano Lett 8(2):538–543

    Google Scholar 

  161. Arcaute K, Mann BK, Wicker RB (2006) Stereolithography of three-dimensional bioactive poly (ethylene glycol) constructs with encapsulated cells. Ann Biomed Eng 34(9):1429–1441

    Google Scholar 

  162. Gobin AS, West JL (2002) Cell migration through defined, synthetic ECM analogs. FASEB J 16(7):751–753

    Google Scholar 

  163. Chan V, Zorlutuna P, Jeong JH, Kong H, Bashir R (2010) Three-dimensional photopatterning of hydrogels using stereolithography for long-term cell encapsulation. Lab Chip 10(16):2062–2070

    Google Scholar 

  164. Lin H, Cheng AW-M, Alexander PG, Beck AM, Tuan RS (2014) Cartilage tissue engineering application of injectable gelatin hydrogel with in situ visible-light-activated gelation capability in both air and aqueous solution. Tissue Eng Part A 20(17–18):2402–2411

    Google Scholar 

  165. Lin H et al (2013) Application of visible light-based projection stereolithography for live cell-scaffold fabrication with designed architecture. Biomaterials 34(2):331–339

    Google Scholar 

  166. Elomaa L, Pan C-C, Shanjani Y, Malkovskiy A, Seppälä JV, Yang Y (2015) Three-dimensional fabrication of cell-laden biodegradable poly (ethylene glycol-co-depsipeptide) hydrogels by visible light stereolithography. J Mater Chem B 3(42):8348–8358

    Google Scholar 

  167. Grogan SP et al (2013) Digital micromirror device projection printing system for meniscus tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 9(7):7218–7226

    Google Scholar 

  168. Majeed A, Lv J, Peng T (2018) A framework for big data driven process analysis and optimization for additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp J. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-04-2017-0075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Li S, Yan Y, Xiong Z, Zhang CWR, Wang X (2009) Gradient hydrogel construct based on an improved cell assembling system. J Bioact Compat Polym 24(1_suppl):84–99

    Google Scholar 

  170. Liu L, Xiong Z, Yan Y, Zhang R, Wang X, Jin L (2009) Multinozzle low-temperature deposition system for construction of gradient tissue engineering scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 88(1):254–263

    Google Scholar 

  171. Li S, Xiong Z, Wang X, Yan Y, Liu H, Zhang R (2009) Direct fabrication of a hybrid cell/hydrogel construct by a double-nozzle assembling technology. J Bioact Compat Polym 24(3):249–265

    Google Scholar 

  172. Lacroix D, Planell JA, Prendergast PJ (2009) Computer-aided design and finite-element modelling of biomaterial scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 367(1895):1993–2009

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51175432), the Innovation Platform of Biofabrication (Grant No. 17SF0002), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 3102014JCS05007) and the key Research and Development program of Shaanxi Province 2018 (Grant No. 2018ZDXM-GY-133).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industry Engineering, College of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, 710072, People’s Republic of China

    Jabran Saroia, Wang Yanen, Qinghua Wei & Kun Zhang

  2. Key Laboratory for Space Bioscience and Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, 710072, People’s Republic of China

    Tingli Lu

  3. Department of Urology, Tangdu Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, 710038, People’s Republic of China

    Bo Zhang

Authors
  1. Jabran Saroia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wang Yanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qinghua Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tingli Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wang Yanen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saroia, J., Yanen, W., Wei, Q. et al. A review on biocompatibility nature of hydrogels with 3D printing techniques, tissue engineering application and its future prospective. Bio-des. Manuf. 1, 265–279 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-018-0029-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-018-0029-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation