Scaffold Design for Bone Tissue Engineering: From Micrometric to Nanometric Level

Part of the Springer Series in Biomaterials Science and Engineering book series (SSBSE, volume 1)


Porous biodegradable polymeric scaffolds are essential for tissue ­engineering application since they should provide the adequate three-dimensional structure for cellular attachment and tissue development. In this context, recent paradigm moves towards new fabrication techniques able to develop micro- and nano-structured platforms which assure an optimal balance in terms of cell ­recognition, mass transport properties, and mechanical response to reproduce the morphological and functional features of natural tissues at the microscopic and nanoscopic level. Here, a large variety of technologies has been proposed to develop tailor-made platforms with micro/nanoscale architecture and chemical composition suitable for regenerating natural bony extracellular matrix (bECM).


Simulated Body Fluid Porous Scaffold Composite Scaffold Amorphous Calcium Phosphate Tissue Engineering Scaffold 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was supported by the Italian Research Network “TISSUENET” n. RBPR05RSM2 and by IP STEPS EC FP6-500465.


  1. 1.
    Abe Y et al (1990) Apatite coating on ceramics metals and polymers utilizing a biological process. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1(4):233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarez-Perez MA et al (2010) Influence of gelatin cues in PCL electrospun membranes on nerve outgrowth. Biomacromolecules 11(9):2238–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambrosio L et al (2001) In: Chiellini et al (eds) Biomedical polymers and polymer therapeutics. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, US Springer Part 1, pp 227–233Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrere F et al (2002) Nucleation of biomimetic Ca-P coatings on Ti6Al4V from a SBFx5 solution: influence of magnesium. Biomaterials 23(10):2211–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boskey AL et al (1991) Hyaluronan interactions with hydroxyapatite do not alter in vitro hydroxyapatite crystal proliferation and growth. Matrix 11:442–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campoccia D et al (1998) Semi-synthetic resorbable materials from hyaluronan esterification. Biomaterials 19:2101–2127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caplan AI et al (2006) Mesenchymal stem cells as trophic mediators. J Cell Biochem 98:1076–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Causa F et al (2007) A multi-functional scaffold for tissue regeneration: the need to engineer a tissue analogue. Biomaterials 28:5093–5099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chong EJ et al (2007) Evaluation of electrospun PCL/gelatin nanofibrous scaffold for wound healing and layered dermal reconstitution. Acta Biomater 3:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Djouad F et al (2009) Mesenchymal stem cells: innovative therapeutic tools for rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 5:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcia AJ et al (1999) Integrin-fibronectin interactions at cell-material interface: initial integrin binding and signaling. Biomaterials 20(23–24):2427–2433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffith LG et al (2002) Tissue engineering: current challenges and expanding opportunities. Science 295:1009–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino V et al (2007) Bioactive scaffolds for bone and ligament tissue. Exp Rev Med Devices 4(3):405–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guarino V et al (2007) Porosity and mechanical properties relationship in PCL based scaffolds. J Appl Biomater Biomech 5(3):149–157Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guarino V et al (2008) Design and manufacture of microporous polymeric materials with hierarchal complex structure for biomedical application. Mater Sci Tech 24(9):1111–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guarino V et al (2008) The role of hydroxyapatite as solid signal on performance of PCL porous scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 86B:548–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guarino V et al (2008) Polylactic acid fibre reinforced polycaprolactone scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 29:3662–3670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino V et al (2008) The synergic effect of polylactide fiber and calcium phosphate particles reinforcement in poly ε-caprolactone based composite scaffolds. Acta Biomater 4(6):1778–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guarino V et al (2009) The influence of hydroxyapatite particles on “in vitro” degradation behaviour of PCL based composite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 15(11):3655–3668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guarino V et al (2009) Polycaprolactone and gelatin electrospun platforms for bone regeneration. Reg Med 4(6 Suppl 2):S187–S188Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guarino V et al (2010) Morphology and degradation properties of PCL/HYAFF11-based composite scaffolds with multiscale degradation rate. Comp Sci Tech 70:1826–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    He J et al (2010) Osteogenesis and trophic factor secretion are influenced by the composition of hydroxyapatite/poly(lactide-co-glycolide) composite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 16:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hench LL (1991) Bioceramics: from concept to clinic. J Am Ceram Soc 74(7):487–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4:518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hu J et al (2009) Chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiations of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells on nanofibrous scaffold with designed pore network. Biomaterials 30:5061–5067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang Z et al (2003) A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 63:2223–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hutmacher DW et al (2007) State of the art and future directions of scaffold-based bone ­engineering from a biomaterials perspective. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 1:245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jager M et al (2007) Significance of nano and microtopography for cell surface interactions in orthopaedic implants. J Biomed Biotech 2007. doi:101155/2007/69036Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karande TS et al (2004) Diffusion in musculoskeletal tissue engineering scaffolds: design issues related to porosity permeability architecture and nutrient mixing. Ann Biomed Eng 32:1728–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim HW et al (2007) Nanofibrous matrices of poly(lactic acid) and gelatin polymeric blends for the improvement of cellular responses. J Biomed Mater Res A 87A:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim HW (2007) Biomedical nanocomposites of hydroxyapatite/polycaprolactone obtained by surfactant mediation. J Biomed Mater Res 83A:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kon E et al (2009) Tissue engineering for total meniscal substitution: animal study in sheep model. Tissue Eng Part A 14(6):1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li M et al (2006) Electrospinning polyaniline contained gelatin nanofibers for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 27:2705–2715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li WJ, Laurencin CT, Caterson EJ, Tuan RS, Ko FK (2002) Electrospun nanofibrous structure: a novel scaffold for tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res 60:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu Q et al (1997) Nano-apatite/polymer composites: mechanical and physiochemical characteristics. Biomaterials 18(19):1263–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Luong-Van E et al (2007) The in vivo assessment of a novel scaffold containing heparan ­sulfate for tissue engineering with human mesenchymal stem cells. J Mol Histol 38:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ma K et al (2005) Grafting of gelatin on electrospun poly(caprolactone) nanofibers to improve endothelial cell spreading and proliferation and to control cell orientation. Tissue Eng 11:1149–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ma K et al (2008) Electrospun nanofiber scaffolds for rapid and rich capture of bone marrow-derived hematopoietic stem cells. Biomaterials 29:2096–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Manferdini C et al (2010) Mineralization behavior with mesenchymal stromal cells in a bio-mimetic hyaluronic acid-based scaffold. Biomaterials 31(14):3986–3996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mao C et al (1998) Biomimetic growth of calcium phosphates with an organized hydroxylated surface as template. J Mater Sci Lett 17:1479–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McManus MC et al (2006) Mechanical properties of electrospun fibrinogen structures. Acta Biomater 2:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mobasherpour I et al (2007) Synthesis of nanocrystalline hydroxyapaptite by using precipitation method. J Alloys Compd 430:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ng AMH et al (2008) Differential osteogenic activity of osteoprogenitor cells on HA and TCP/HA scaffold of tissue engineered bone. J Biomed Mater Res 85A:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    O’Brien FJ et al (2005) The effect of pore size on cell adhesion in collagen-GAG scaffolds. Biomaterials 26:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Prabhakaran MP et al (2009) Mesenchymal stem cells differentiation to neuronal cells on electrospun nanofibrous substrates for nerve tissue engineering. Biomaterials 26:2603–2610Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Raucci MG et al (2010) Biomineralized porous composite scaffolds prepared by chemical synthesis for bone tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater. doi:101016/jactbio201004018Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Raucci MG et al (2010) Hybrid composite scaffolds prepared by sol-gel method for bone regeneration. Comp Sci Technol. doi:101016/jcompscitech201005030Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seib FP et al (2009) Matrix elasticity regulates the secretory profile of human bone marrow-derived multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). Biochem Biophys Res Commun 389:663–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shin YRV et al (2006) Growth of mesenchymal stem cells on electrospun type I collagen nanofibers. Stem Cells 24:2391–2397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Small DM (1986) The physical chemistry of lipids: from alkanes to phospholipids. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stevens MM et al (2005) Exploring and engineering the cell interface. Science 310:1135–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tian F et al (2008) Quantitative analysis of cell adhesion on aligned micro- and nanofibers. J Biomed Mater Res 84A:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Toole BP et al (1972) Hyaluronate in morphogenesis: inhibition of chondrogenesis in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 69:1384–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tuzlakoglu K et al (2005) Nano and micro-fiber combined scaffold: a new architecture for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16:1099–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Uebersax L et al (2006) Effect of scaffold design on bone morphology in vitro. Tissue Eng 12(12):3417–3429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wang M (2003) Developing bioactive materials for tissue replacement. Biomaterials 24(13):2161–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Webster TJ et al (1999) Osteoblasts adhesion on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials 20:1221–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang R et al (1999) Poly(α-hydroxyl acids)/hydroxyapatite porous composites for bone-tissue engineering. Preparation and morphology. J Biomed Mater Res 44:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhang R et al (1999) Porous poly(l-lactic acid)/apatite composites created by biomimetic process. J Biomed Mater Res 45(3):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Composite and Biomedical Materials, National Research CouncilNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations