Response to Letter to Editor "Comment on 'A photo-crosslinkable cartilage-derived extracellular matrix bioink for auricular cartilage tissue engineering' by Visscher et al."

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE:  .

[What is the stat of art in 3D bioprinting of cartilage? Challenges concerning the reconstruction of a burned ear]. / Hoe staat het met 3D-bioprinten van kraakbeen?

Five years ago in this journal we described our research into 3D bioprinting of ear cartilage for the purpose of making personalized cartilage implants for facial reconstruction. 3D bioprinting makes it possible to place living cells in a biodegradable scaffold to give a 3D structure to the tissue. We are able to develop a hybrid auricular cartilage implant model. However, Long term in vivo experiments are needed to test preclinical applicability. Nevertheless, the work presented in our studies provides a potential strategy for the use of biofabricated tissue constructs in the clinic. In short, 3D bioprinting is still in its infancy and has no direct clinical application yet. Before the step to the clinic can be made, the technique still has to go through a preclinical phase in which it is investigated how the 3D printed tissue would appear in vivo.

A photo-crosslinkable cartilage-derived extracellular matrix bioink for auricular cartilage tissue engineering.

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting of patient-specific auricular cartilage constructs could aid in the reconstruction process of traumatically injured or congenitally deformed ear cartilage. To achieve this, a hydrogel-based bioink is required that recapitulates the complex cartilage microenvironment. Tissue-derived decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM)-based hydrogels have been used as bioinks for cell-based 3D bioprinting because they contain tissue-specific ECM components that play a vital role in cell adhesion, growth, and differentiation. In this study, porcine auricular cartilage tissues were isolated and decellularized, and the decellularized cartilage tissues were characterized by histology, biochemical assay, and proteomics. This cartilage-derived dECM (cdECM) was subsequently processed into a photo-crosslinkable hydrogel using methacrylation (cdECMMA) and mixed with chondrocytes to create a printable bioink. The rheological properties, printability, and in vitro biological properties of the cdECMMA bioink were examined. The results showed cdECM was obtained with complete removal of cellular components while preserving major ECM proteins. After methacrylation, the cdECMMA bioinks were printed in anatomical ear shape and exhibited adequate mechanical properties and structural integrity. Specifically, auricular chondrocytes in the printed cdECMMA hydrogel constructs maintained their viability and proliferation capacity and eventually produced cartilage ECM components, including collagen and glycosaminoglycans (GAGs). The potential of cell-based bioprinting using this cartilage-specific dECMMA bioink is demonstrated as an alternative option for auricular cartilage reconstruction.

Skin bioprinting: the future of burn wound reconstruction?

Burns are a significant cause of trauma, and over the years, the focus of patient care has shifted from just survival to facilitation of improved functional outcomes. Typically, burn treatment, especially in the case of extensive burn injuries, involves surgical excision of injured skin and reconstruction of the burn injury with the aid of skin substitutes. Conventional skin substitutes do not contain all skin cell types and do not facilitate recapitulation of native skin physiology. Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting for reconstruction of burn injuries involves layer-by-layer deposition of cells along with scaffolding materials over the injured areas. Skin bioprinting can be done either in situ or in vitro. Both these approaches are similar except for the site of printing and tissue maturation. There are technological and regulatory challenges that need to be overcome for clinical translation of bioprinted skin for burn reconstruction. However, the use of bioprinting for skin reconstruction following burns is promising; bioprinting will enable accurate placement of cell types and precise and reproducible fabrication of constructs to replace the injured or damaged sites. Overall, 3D bioprinting is a very transformative technology, and its use for wound reconstruction will lead to a paradigm shift in patient outcomes. In this review, we aim to introduce bioprinting, the different stages involved, in vitro and in vivo skin bioprinting, and the various clinical and regulatory challenges in adoption of this technology.

Enhanced osteogenic activity by MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts on chemically surface-modified poly(ε-caprolactone) 3D-printed scaffolds compared to RGD immobilized scaffolds.

In bone tissue engineering, the intrinsic hydrophobicity and surface smoothness of three-dimensional (3D)-printed poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds hamper cell attachment, proliferation and differentiation. This intrinsic hydrophobicity of poly(ε-caprolactone) can be overcome by surface modifications, such as surface chemical modification or immobilization of biologically active molecules on the surface. Moreover, surface chemical modification may alter surface smoothness. Whether surface chemical modification or immobilization of a biologically active molecule on the surface is more effective to enhance pre-osteoblast proliferation and differentiation is currently unknown. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the osteogenic response of MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts to chemically surface-modified and RGD-immobilized 3D-printed poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds. Poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds were 3D-printed consisting of strands deposited layer by layer with alternating 0°/90° lay-down pattern. 3D-printed poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds were surface-modified by either chemical modification using 3 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for 24 or 72 h, or by RGD-immobilization. Strands were visualized by scanning electron microscopy. MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts were seeded onto the scaffolds and cultured up to 14 d. The strands of the unmodified poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffold had a smooth surface. NaOH treatment changed the scaffold surface topography from smooth to a honeycomb-like surface pattern, while RGD immobilization did not alter the surface topography. MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblast seeding efficiency was similar (44%-54%) on all scaffolds after 12 h. Cell proliferation increased from day 1 to day 14 in unmodified controls (1.9-fold), 24 h NaOH-treated scaffolds (3-fold), 72 h NaOH-treated scaffolds (2.2-fold), and RGD-immobilized scaffolds (4.5-fold). At day 14, increased collagenous matrix deposition was achieved only on 24 h NaOH-treated (1.8-fold) and RGD-immobilized (2.2-fold) scaffolds compared to unmodified controls. Moreover, 24 h, but not 72 h, NaOH-treated scaffolds, increased alkaline phosphatase activity by 5-fold, while the increase by RGD immobilization was only 2.5-fold. Only 24 h NaOH-treated scaffolds enhanced mineralization (2.0-fold) compared to unmodified controls. In conclusion, RGD immobilization (0.011 µg mg-1 scaffold) on the surface and 24 h NaOH treatment of the surface of 3D-printed PCL scaffold both enhance pre-osteoblast proliferation and matrix deposition while only 24 h NaOH treatment results in increased osteogenic activity, making it the treatment of choice to promote bone formation by osteogenic cells.

MRI and Additive Manufacturing of Nasal Alar Constructs for Patient-specific Reconstruction.

Surgical reconstruction of cartilaginous defects remains a major challenge. In the current study, we aimed to identify an imaging strategy for the development of patient-specific constructs that aid in the reconstruction of nasal deformities. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was performed on a human cadaver head to find the optimal MRI sequence for nasal cartilage. This sequence was subsequently used on a volunteer. Images of both were assessed by three independent researchers to determine measurement error and total segmentation time. Three dimensionally (3D) reconstructed alar cartilage was then additively manufactured. Validity was assessed by comparing manually segmented MR images to the gold standard (micro-CT). Manual segmentation allowed delineation of the nasal cartilages. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was acceptable in the cadaver (coefficient of variation 4.6-12.5%), but less in the volunteer (coefficient of variation 0.6-21.9%). Segmentation times did not differ between observers (cadaver P = 0.36; volunteer P = 0.6). The lateral crus of the alar cartilage was consistently identified by all observers, whereas part of the medial crus was consistently missed. This study suggests that MRI is a feasible imaging modality for the development of 3D alar constructs for patient-specific reconstruction.

Cartilage Tissue Engineering: Preventing Tissue Scaffold Contraction Using a 3D-Printed Polymeric Cage.

Scaffold contraction is a common but underestimated problem in the field of tissue engineering. It becomes particularly problematic when creating anatomically complex shapes such as the ear. The aim of this study was to develop a contraction-free biocompatible scaffold construct for ear cartilage tissue engineering. To address this aim, we used three constructs: (i) a fibrin/hyaluronic acid (FB/HA) hydrogel, (ii) a FB/HA hydrogel combined with a collagen I/III scaffold, and (iii) a cage construct containing (ii) surrounded by a 3D-printed poly-ɛ-caprolactone mold. A wide range of different cell types were tested within these constructs, including chondrocytes, perichondrocytes, adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, and their combinations. After in vitro culturing for 1, 14, and 28 days, all constructs were analyzed. Macroscopic observation showed severe contraction of the cell-seeded hydrogel (i). This could be prevented, in part, by combining the hydrogel with the collagen scaffold (ii) and prevented in total using the 3D-printed cage construct (iii). (Immuno)histological analysis, multiphoton laser scanning microscopy, and biomechanical analysis showed extracellular matrix deposition and increased Young's modulus and thereby the feasibility of ear cartilage engineering. These results demonstrated that the 3D-printed cage construct is an adequate model for contraction-free ear cartilage engineering using a range of cell combinations.

Advances in Bioprinting Technologies for Craniofacial Reconstruction.

Recent developments in craniofacial reconstruction have shown important advances in both the materials and methods used. While autogenous tissue is still considered to be the gold standard for these reconstructions, the harvesting procedure remains tedious and in many cases causes significant donor site morbidity. These limitations have subsequently led to the development of less invasive techniques such as 3D bioprinting that could offer possibilities to manufacture patient-tailored bioactive tissue constructs for craniofacial reconstruction. Here, we discuss the current technological and (pre)clinical advances of 3D bioprinting for use in craniofacial reconstruction and highlight the challenges that need to be addressed in the coming years.

[3D bioprinting of cartilage: challenges concerning the reconstruction of a burned ear]. / 3D-bioprinten van kraakbeen: uitdagingen voor de reconstructie van een verbrand oor.

Reconstruction of a severely maimed ear is a major challenge. The ear is highly flexible yet tough, and has a very complex three-dimensional shape. Reconstruction of a patient's burned ear is even more complex due to surrounding tissue damage. Not only does this hamper reconstruction options, it also increases the likelihood of issues when using synthetic implant materials. In such cases, rib cartilage is the preferred option, but this tissue has practical limitations too. For these reasons, tissue engineering and 3D bioprinting may have the potential to create personalized cartilage implants for burns patients. However, 3D bioprinting is a tool to facilitate the reconstruction, and not by itself the Holy Grail. The clinical application of this technique is still at a very early stage. Nevertheless, we expect that 3D bioprinting can be utilised for facial reconstruction following burns come 2020.