Submit manuscript...
International Journal of
eISSN: 2573-2889

Molecular Biology: Open Access

Review Article Volume 5 Issue 3

Three dimensional printed scaffolds and biomaterials for periodontal regeneration-an insight

Liya Anil, Vandana KL

Department of Periodontics, College of dental Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University, India

Correspondence: Dr Vandana KL, MDS, Senior Professor Department of Periodontics, College of dental Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi university, Davangere–577 004, Karnataka, India, Tel (08192) 231285, 231029

Received: June 27, 2020 | Published: July 29, 2020

Citation: Anil L, Vandana KL. Three dimensional printed scaffolds and biomaterials for periodontal regeneration-an insight. Int J Mol Biol Open Access. 2020;5(3):73-77. DOI: 10.15406/ijmboa.2020.05.00135

Download PDF


Periodontal applications of three dimensional(3D) printing included education models, scaffolds, socket preservation, and sinus and bone augmentation and guided implant placement. 3D scaffolds have been recently investigated in the field of dentistry and periodontics as a bone graft substitutes which could overcome the drawbacks of routinely employed grafting materials. In this review, we highlight different biomaterials suitable for 3D scaffold fabrication, with a focus on “3D-printed” ones as bone graft substitutes that might be convenient for various applications related to periodontal regeneration and implant therapy.

Keywords: three dimensional printing, scaffolds, alveolar bone, periodontal ligament, regeneration


Three dimensional (3D) printing has promising application in various fields of dentistry such as periodontics, implantology, orthodontic, endodontic, prosthodontics, maxillofacial surgery, and restorative dentistry. In the field of periodontology and implant dentistry, 3D scaffolds in the form of bone graft substitutes overcomes the disadvantages of commonly used grafting materials. Scaffold properties are influenced by the used biomaterials and must be specific for the application while in harmony with the native environment to ensure that the defect area is replaced with a healthy, functional tissue matching the original one, without reparative scar formation. In this review, we focus on different biomaterials suitable for 3D scaffold fabrication, with a focus on “3D-printed” ones as bone graft substitutes that might be convenient for various applications related to periodontal regeneration and implant therapy.A review by Farah et al presented an excellent compilation of 3D printed scaffold and biomaterial.1 In a recent literature review by Gul et aldiscussed about the applications of 3D printing in periodontology which includes use of 3D printed scaffold for socket preservation, periodontal regeneration, sinus and bone augmentation and maintenance of peri implant. Use of 3D printed surgical guide has increased the accuracy, reduced complications and working time. The only drawback of the 3D printing is its cost effectiveness and the time required for manufacturing.2 There are limited literature on the 3d printed scaffolds on the medline search using keywords Three dimensional printing, scaffolds, alveolar bone, periodontal ligament and regeneration. Hence, in this review an attempt is made to brief the biomaterials used in regeneration of alveolar bone ad periodontal ligament.

3d scaffold biomaterials for alveolar bone regeneration

The cellular affinity of a scaffold influences its overall properties3 such as adhesion, proliferation and regeneration outcome. Intergrins are known to influence the adhesion. The first biomaterials are natural polymers such as protiens and polysaccharides which are utilized in the clinical applications. These biocompatibles have the cell recognition and cellular interactions in the tissue environment4 and hydrophilicity.5 In the tissue engineering, the hydrophilicity property that is hydrogels are responsible for cell encapsulation leading to successful out comes.6–10 The scaffold materials can be made up of natural materials, synthetic materials, bioceramics and metals. The various natural materials used for scaffold are presented in Table 1.

Natural material                       



Most commonly expressed protein. Structural strength and stability is provided to several tissues such as bone and skin.


In vitro cell adhesion, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells are demonstrated.39


Gelatin is the denatured collagen which facilitates osteoblastic migration , adhesion and mineralization due to presence of many biological and functional moleclules present in it.40


In Bone Tissue Engineering (BTE) application, collagen which is the major component of ECM serves as an important biomateraial.


Collage is preferred to be used in combination with bioceramic which has close resemblance to ECM of bone specially in non-bearing areas.41


A polysaccharide is a popular biomaterial with antibacteial , antifungal activities , analgesic properties and rapid formation of clot property, rendering chitosan as a wound heal accumulation biomaterial.42 This property of Chitosan minimizes contamination of scaffold thus preventing postoperative infections, exposure and failure of scaffold.


The use of alginate is common because it can be highly processed into different types of scaffold and cell encapsulation property43 helping in regenerative medicine for BTE.44


Both Chitosan and alginate are not present in the human body but have structural similarities to glycosaminoglycans in the ECM of human bone 45 which makes them impressive candidates in BTE.

Table 1 Natural biomaterials utilized for scaffolds

Disadvantages of natural polymers

Even though there is good biologic characters, the bioactivity is not present in these natural polymers which is required for hard tissue formation.11 Additional drawbacks are, weak mechanical property and fast degradation time12–14 through enzymatic reaction.15

The undesirable or disadvantages of natural polymer are overcome by use of bioceramics or synthetic polymers or metals which are mechanically strong ones depending on the area of scaffold application such as non-load bearing or load bearing. Although mechanically weak, bioceramics increase the compressive strength of natural polymer scaffolds.16 The low cost and possibility of its production in large quantities with longer shelf life than natural polymers are the main advantages of synthetic scaffold biomaterial.17 Various aliphatic polysters used are Polycaprolactone(PCL), Polylactic acid(PLA), Polyglycolic acid(PGA) ,Poly lactic co-glycolic acid( PLGA) which are described in Table 2.

Synthetic scaffold materials


Polycaprolactone (PCL)

It is the most popular material used in medical devices over 30 years46 which is used in craniofacial repair.47


It is biocompatible, suitable to fabricate various scaffold technique, slow degradation rate and mechanically stable. The maintenance of regenerated bone volume and its outcome is possible owing to slow degradation rate and mechanical stability.48


The hydrophobic nature of PCL49 is responsible for the poor cell affinity and inferior cellular responses and surface interactions.50

Polylactic acid (PLA), Polyglycolic acid (PGA) ,Poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid( PLGA)

These are hydrophobic except the PGA which is hydrophilic .These have higher degradation rates as compared to PCL.51

Table 2 Biodegradable polymers and its features as scaffold material

Degradation of synthetic aliphatic polymers

Generally they exhibit slow degradation as compared to natural polymers and bio ceramics.18 They degrade by hydrolysis either as bulk degradation or erosion of surface. Most often, the interior aspect of biomaterial degrade and leaves an empty shell formation by maintaining the size for a significant time period.19 This characteristic feature is suitable when used for BTE than drug delivery treatment.

Acidic products released during its degradation cause necrosis of tissue and later scaffold exposue.20 The acidic byproducts can be counteracted and ph buffering can be achieved by combining polyesters with bioceramics21 and metals.22 Good moldability of polyesters into any shape and mechanical properties are best suitable despite their acid by products and lack of bioavailability.


These are inorganic materials namely calcium phosphate bioceramics and bioactive glass that are used as bone fillers in dentistry23 as described in Table 3.



Calcium phosphate bioceramic

It consists of hydroxyapatite (HAP), tricalciumphosphate(α-TCP and β-TCP ) and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) in the injectable form of cement material (pastes) which are easily moldable ,easy to handle and harden when left in place. There is an intimate adaptation of moldable calcium phosphate materials to complex defects which is not possible with conventional bone grafts.52

Hydroxyapatite (HAP)

It is the popular material used in BTE because it shows the same chemical composition of native bone minerals , which influences adhesion and osteoblast proliferation positively.53 The main disadvantage is its prolonged degradation in the crystalline form which impedes the complete bone formation and thus increasing the rise for infection and exposure in oral surgical situations.54 This disadvantage of crystalline HAP form is overcome by amorphous hydroxyapatite.55 The crystalline HAP degradation can be modified by addition of the natural polymers with faster kinetics.56

β–tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP)

The second commonly used is β-TCP due to its faster rate of degradation and ability to form a strong calcium phosphate band in bone. Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) is formed by combining β-TCP with HAP.57 The controlled bioactive and stability. Significant advantages when large bone defects require bone in growth47 in a controllable degradation rate58 as BCP is known to have higher rate of degradation than HAP and slower than the β-TCP.59

Bioactive glass

It is a silicon oxide with calcium being substituted. A calcium phosphate larger is formed on the bioactive glass surface after getting exposed to body fluids and this gets chemically bound to bone.60 The synthetic bioglass and specifically in intra oral application bioglass.61 It has a slow degradation rate as it sets to a converted HAP like material in internal physiologic situation.62,63 The mechanism of bioceramic degradation are multiple ways: Dissolution physiochemically accompanied by possible phase transformation, multinucleated cell-mediated degradation and mechanical fragmentation due to structural integrity loss by the above two mechanisms.64

Table 3 Bioceramics and its characteristic features

Mechanism of action of bioceramics

Various biologic activities that is gaining attention in bone reconstruction are due to bioactivity, biocompatibility, hydrophilicity similar to native inorganic bone composition and its unlimited availability.24

It hasosteoconductive and potential osteoinductive property that is the potential to induce bone formation ectopically by stimulation of the immediate in vivo environment.25 The osteoinductive activity is attributed either to the bioceramics surface which absorbs osteoconductive exhibiting factor or stimulating the differentiation of osteoprogeniter cell into osteoblasts by gradual release of calcium and phosphate ions into the surrounding environment.26 The incorporation of calcium phosphate in 3D scaffolds for regeneration of alveolar bone already exists in literature.27

Disadvantages of bioceramics

The required structure is difficult to shape due to extreme brittleness, stiffness, low flexibility and molding property.28 The mechanical strength is weak,29 fracture toughness30 which restricts its usage in non loading ones. The above disadvantages are overcome by addition of synthetic polyesters or metals.31,32


In the field of dentistry and orthopaedics, the bone replacement is extensively treated by using metallic biomaterials, due to its mechanical properties.33,34 They are suitable for load bearing areas due to its high strength, toughness and hardness in comparison to polymers and ceramics. The size of scaffold is enhanced by metals to improve the mechanical properties. Various metals used as biomaterials are described in Table 4.

Metal- biomaterial                       


Titanium alloy

These are used commonly on the basis of good biocompatibility, mechanical properties and elasticity.65 The major disadvantage is its nondegradability which requires to be removed. This could affect patient satisfaction and enhance the cost of health care.66

Magnesium and its alloy

These have good potential in BTE special orthopaedic application. Their biodegradability by corrosion and the biocompatibility of its degraded products which doesn’t involve adverse reactions in surrounding tissues. There is no need for its retrieval through second surgery making it a popular material for scaffold construction.64,67 These are osteoconductive so as to increase expression of osteogenic marker invitro.68 The faster in vivo biodegradability of pure magnesium can be controlled by use of magnesium alloy or coated with titanium69or ceramics.70 There is no bioactivity by this metal, magnesium.

Composite or hybrid scaffolds

To incorporate the advantage and restriction of limitation of various biomaterial, two or more materials are combined to produce synergestic effect in the overall combined properties71 so as to enhance the biological mechanical and scaffold degradation kinectics.72 The synergistic property can also simulate the complex target bone tissue characteristics which is otherwise not possible with single biomaterial. The term ternary can be used when three biomaterial are used.


Composite scaffolds for BTE can be divided in to polymer/ceramic, ceramic/metal and polymer/ metal. The polymer/ceramic is the most commonly used in recent five years in orthopaedic field. Various composite scaffold maintain the shape of newly formed bone and favour osteoblast attachment, proliferation and its differentiation.73 The composite scaffold comprise of matrix which is less than 50% of the total content and a filler which is minor component ( less than 50% of the content).74

Table 4 Various metals used as biomaterials

Periodontal regeneration using scaffold

For the GTR applications, a dual role is served by scaffold that is a membrane and agrafting material. To serve as membrane a mechanically strong scaffold should be used. PCL is not used as a scaffold because of its slow degradation which can lead to wound dehiscence and failure of tissue regeneration. Magnesium/ PLGA can be applied in socket preservation. Chitosan, natural polymer is the best choice as GTR which has antibacterial properties. Gelatin can also serve the purpose but has decreased mechanical weakness.

In case of alveolar bone regeneration, augmentation and socket preservation, scaffolds made of bioceramics are used. In load bearing areas, collagen should be preferred. Collagen along with hydroxyapatite helps in bone tissue regeneration due to the compositional similarities and reasonable degradation rate. The effect of 3D scaffolds in blood clot stabilization should be looked at as a factor in alveolar bone regeneration. Scaffold stabilization is also an important and compromised regeneration outcome.

In periodontics, 3D printed scaffolds studies have concentrated on biomatrix, functional formation and spatial organization when multiple tissues for regeneration is attempted. However, the related issues that needs to be thoroughly addressed are vascularization, landscape to geographic analysis, degradation profile to kinetics.35 In periodontal regeneration, use of 3D scaffold requires critical evaluation of biologic and mechanical properties as well the degradation kinetics. The blood clot stabilization effect by the 3D scaffold requires to be assessed which serves as an important prognostic factor in bone regeneration.36 Along with bone regeneration technique for soft tissue management plays an important role in regenerative outcome.37 The scaffold fabrication technique needs further investigation to develop required scaffolds to suit the type of tissue regeneration. The scaffold stabilization without micro movement is an important issue to prevent compromised regenerative results/outcomes. To overcome the compromise integrity of scaffold in large defects caused by screws and pins could be further investigated with fibrin glue or press fit graft.

Currently, multi-layered 3D scaffold are being experimented in periodontal regeneration using non dental(bone marrow) stem cells along with platelet rich plasma(PRP). In such situations, the role played by nondental stem cells and PRP in periodontal regeneration cannot be discriminated. Instead, use of autologous PDLSCs along with its niche, a natural scaffold is being tried in human rat and has proved to be successful in both clinical and radiographic measurements in SAIPRT procedure.38 The use of this technique to be incorporated into 3D scaffolds could serve a constructive avenue in 3D scaffold related stem cell approach in periodontics. There is a scarcity of clinical trials literature on 3D scaffolds in bone regeneration/periodontal regeneration. Those published animal studies are not a representation or validated due to the small defect areas and graft size which hinders the extrapolation of the animal study results to human studies.


3D printing has revolutionized the field of periodontology. A scaffold should be biocompatible, biodegradable, and bioactive and should be made of a hybrid of biomaterials, as the combination of different biomaterials is superior to a pure material. 3D-printed scaffolds show predictable outcome for bone and tissue regeneration as well as sinus and bone augmentation.



Conflicts of interest

The author declares there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. Farah Asa’ad, Giorgio Pagni, Sophia P Pilipchuk, et al. 3D-Printed Scaffolds and Biomaterials: Review of Alveolar Bone Augmentation and Periodontal Regeneration Applications. International Journal of Dentistry. 2016:1–15.
  2. Gul M, Arif A, Ghafoor R. Role of three-dimensional printing in periodontal regeneration and repair: Literature review. J Indian SocPeriodontol. 2019;23(6):504–510.
  3. G Khang. Evolution of gradient concept for the application of regenerative medicine. Biosurface and Biotribology. 2015;1(3):202–213.
  4. S Ivanovski, C Vaquette, S Gronthos, et al. Multiphasic scaffolds for periodontal tissue engineering. Journal of Dental Research. 2014;93(12):1212–1221.
  5. M El Sherbiny, MH Yacoub. Hydrogel scaffolds for tissue engineering: progress and challenges. Global Cardiology Science and Practice. 2013;2013(3)316–342.
  6. Mikos AG, Papadaki MG, Kouvroukoglou S, et al. Mini-review: islet transplantation to create a bioartificial pancreas. Biotechnology & Bioengineering. 1994;43(7):673–677.
  7. Y Cao, A Rodriguez, M Vacanti, et al. Comparative study of the use of poly(glycolic acid), calcium alginate and pluronics in the engineering of autologous porcine cartilage. Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition. 1998;9(5):475–487.
  8. CD Sims, PEM Butler, YL Cao, et al. Tissue engineered neocartilage using plasma derived polymer substrates and chondrocytes. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1998;101(6):1580–1585.
  9. C Perka, RS Spitzer, K Lindenhayn, et al. Matrix-mixed culture: new methodology for chondrocyte culture and preparation of cartilage transplants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 2000;49(3);305–311.
  10. K Y Lee, D J Mooney. Hydrogels for tissue engineering. Chem Rev. 2001;101(7);1869–1879.
  11. Maria G Raucci, Vincenzo Guarino, Luigi Ambrosio. Biomimetic strategies for bone repair and regeneration. J Funct Biomater. 2012;3(4):688–705.
  12. J Sun, H Tan. Alginate-based biomaterials for regenerative medicine applications. Materials. 2013;6(4):1285–1309.
  13. SJ Florczyk, DJ Kim, DL Wood, et al. Influence of processing parameters on pore structure of 3D porous chitosan-alginate polyelectrolyte complex scaffolds. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 2011;98(4):614–620.
  14. Z Cao, C Dou, S Dong. Scaffolding biomaterials for cartilage regeneration. Journal of Nanomaterials. 2014;2014:1‒8.
  15. R Lenz. Biodegradable polymers. In: RS Langer, NA Peppas, editors. Biopolymers I volume 107, Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1993. p. 1–40.
  16. Robert J Kane, Holly E Weiss-Bilka, Matthew J Meagher, et al. Hydroxyapatite reinforced collagen scaffolds with improved architecture and mechanical properties. Acta Biomaterialia. 2015;17:16–25.
  17. B Dhandayuthapani, Y Yoshida, T Maekawa, et al. Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application: a review. International Journal of Polymer Science. 2011;2011:1‒19.
  18. L Yildirimer, AM Seifalian. Three-dimensional biomaterial degradation—material choice, design and extrinsic factor considerations. Biotechnology Advances. 2014;32(5):984–999.
  19. S Li. Hydrolytic degradation characteristics of aliphatic polyesters derived from lactic and glycolic acids. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;48(3):342–353.
  20. R Amini, CT Laurencin, SP Nukavarapu. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;40(5):363–408.
  21. Elnaz Tamjid, Arash Simchi, John W C Dunlop, et al. Tissue growth into three-dimensional composite scaffolds with controlled micro-features and nanotopographical surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101(10):2796–2807.
  22. Andrew Brown, Samer Zaky, Herbert Ray Jr, et al. Porous magnesium/ PLGA composite scaffolds for enhanced bone regeneration following tooth extraction. Acta Biomaterialia. 2015;11:543–553.
  23. R Sarkar, G Banerjee.Ceramic based bio-medical implants. InterCeram. 2010;59(2):98–102.
  24. Joseph R Woodard, Amanda J Hilldore, Sheeny K Lan, et al. The mechanical properties and osteoconductivity of hydroxyapatite bone scaffolds with multi-scale porosity. Biomaterials. 2007;28(1):45–54.
  25. T J Blokhuis, J J Chris Arts. Bioactive and osteoinductive bone graft substitutes: definitions, facts and myths. Injury. 2011;42:S26–S29.
  26. Ana M C Barradas, Huipin Yuan, Clemens A van Blitterswijk, et al. Osteoinductive biomaterials: current knowledge of properties, experimental models and biological mechanisms. European Cells & Materials. 2011;21:407–429.
  27. Pedro F Costa, Cédryck Vaquette, Qiyi Zhang, et al. Advanced tissue engineering scaffold design for regeneration of the complex hierarchical periodontal structure. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2014;41(3):283–294.
  28. Hae-Won Kim, Eun-Jung Lee, In-Kook Jun, et al. Degradation and drug release of phosphate glass/polycaprolactone biological composites for hard-tissue regeneration.Journal of Biomedical Materials Research—Part B. Applied Biomaterials. 2005;75(1):34–41.
  29. LL Hench. Bioceramics: from concept to clinic. Journal of the American Ceramic Society. 1991;74(7):1487–1510.
  30. R Tevlin, A McArdle, D Atashroo, et al. Biomaterials for craniofacial bone engineering. Journal of Dental Research. 2014;93(12):1187–1195.
  31. Y Zhang, C Wu. Bioactive inorganic and organic composite materials for bone regeneration and gene delivery. In: C Wu, J Chang, editors. Advanced Bioactive Inorganic Materials for Bone Regeneration and Drug Delivery. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA. 2013:178– 205.
  32. E Długon, W Niemiec, A Frączek Szczypta, et al. Spectroscopic studies of electrophoretically deposited hybrid HAp/CNT coatings on titanium. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy. 2014;133:872–875.
  33. MP Staiger, AM Pietak, J Huadmai, et al. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials. 2006;27(9):1728–1734.
  34. K Alvarez, H Nakajima. Metallic scaffolds for bone regeneration. Materials. 2009;2(3):790–832.
  35. C Mangano, B Barboni, L Valbonetti, et al. In vivo behaviour of a custom-made 3D synthetic bone substitute in sinus augmentation procedures in sheep. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2015;41(3):241–251.
  36. G Pellegrini, G Pagni, G Rasperini. Surgical approaches based on biological objectives: GTR versus GBR techniques. International Journal of Dentistry. 2013;2013:1–13.
  37. F Asaad, G Rasperini, G Pagni, et al. Pre-augmentation soft tissue expansion: an overview. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2016;27(5):505–522.
  38. Halappa Sasvehalli Shalini, Kharidhi Laxman Vandana. Direct application of autologous periodontal ligament stem cell niche in treatment of periodontal osseous defects: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2018;22(6):503–512.
  39. L Pastorino, E Dellacasa, S Scaglione, et al. Oriented collagen nanocoatings for tissue engineering. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces. 2014;114:372–378.
  40. U Meyer, HP Wiesmann. Bone and Cartilage Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006.
  41. DA Wahl, JT Czernuszka. Collagen-hydroxyapatite composites for hard tissue repair. European Cells and Materials. 2006;11:43–56.
  42. Aranaz, M Mengibar, R Harris, et al. Functional characterization of chitin and chitosan. Current Chemical Biology. 2009;3(2):203–230.
  43. A Murua, A Portero, G Orive, et al. Cell microencapsulation technology: towards clinical application. Journal of Controlled Release. 2008;132(2):76–83.
  44. BM Holzapfel, JC Reichert, JT Schantzetal. How smart do biomaterials need to be? A translational science and clinical point of view. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2013;65(4):581–603.
  45. BT Goh, LY Teh, DBP Tan, et al. Novel 3D polycaprolactone scaffold for ridge preservation- a pilot randomised controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015;26(3):271–277.
  46. JE Gough, P Christian, CA Scotchford, et al. Craniofacial osteoblast responses to polycaprolactone produced using a novel boron polymerisation technique and potassium fluoride post-treatment. Biomaterials. 2003;24(27):4905–4912.
  47. G Mitsak, JM Kemppainen, MT Harris, et al. Effect of polycaprolactone scaffold permeability on bone regeneration in vivo. Tissue Engineering Part A. 2011;17(13–14):1831–1839.
  48. Y Zhu, C Gao, J Shen. Surface modification of polycaprolactone with poly(methacrylic acid) and gelatin covalent immobilization for promoting its cytocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2002;23(24):4889–4895.
  49. MM Lim, T Sun, N Sultana. In Vitro biological evaluation of electrospunpolycaprolactone/gelatine nanofibrous scaffold for tissue engineering. Journal of Nanomaterials. 2015;2015:10.
  50. Q Chen, C Zhu, GA Thouas. Progress and challenges in biomaterials used for bone tissue engineering: bioactive glasses and elastomeric composites. Progress in Biomaterials. 2012;1.
  51. W Thein Han, HH K Xu. Collagen-calcium phosphate cement scaffolds seeded with umbilical cord stemcells for bone tissue engineering. Tissue Engineering Part A. 2011;17(23–24):2943–2954.
  52. J Huang, SM Best, W Bonfield et al. In vitro assessment of the biological response to nano-sized hydroxyapatite. Journal of Materials Science:Materials in Medicine. 2004;15(4):441–445.
  53. C Szpalski, J Barr, M Wetterau, et al. Cranial bone defects: current and future strategies. Neurosurgical Focus. 2010;29(6):8.
  54. J Zhao, Y Liu, WB. Sun, et al. Amorphous calcium phosphate and its application in dentistry. Chemistry Central Journal. 2011;5:40.
  55. KD Johnson, KE Frierson, TS Keller, et al. Porous ceramics as bone graft substitutes in long bone defects: a biomechanical, histological, and radiographic analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 1996;14(3):351–369.
  56. EB Nery, KK Lee, S Czajkowski et al. A Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic in periodontal osseous defects. Journal of Periodontology. 1990;61(12):737–744.
  57. SE Lobo, TL Arinzeh. Biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics for bone regeneration and tissue engineering applications. Materials. 2010;3(2):815–826.
  58. HRR Ramay, M Zhang. Biphasic calcium phosphate nanocomposite porous scaffolds for load-bearing bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2004;25(21):5171–5180.
  59. V Petrovic, P Zivkovic, D Petrovic, et al. Craniofacial bone tissue engineering. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine,Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2012;114(3):1–9.
  60. LL Hench. The story of bioglass. Journal of Materials Science:Materials in Medicine. 2006;17(1):967–978.
  61. SP Pilipchuk, AB Plonka, A Monje et al. Tissue engineering for bone regeneration and osseointegration in the oral cavity. Dental Materials. 2015;31(4):317–338.
  62. W Huang, DE Day, K Kittiratanapiboon, et al. Kinetics and mechanisms of the conversion of silicate (45S5), borate, and borosilicate glasses to hydroxyapatite in dilute phosphate solutions. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2006;17(7):583–596.
  63. W Huang, MN Rahaman, DE Day, et al. Mechanisms of converting silicate, borate, and borosilicate glasses to hydroxyapatite in dilute phosphate solutions. Physics and Chemistry of Glasses: European Journal of Glass Science and Technology Part B. 2006;47( 6):647–658.
  64. NL Davison, F Barrere-de Groot, DW Grijpma. Degradation of biomaterials. In: CA Van Blitterswijk, J De Boer, editors. Tissue Engineering, Elsevier, 2nd edition; 2015:177–215.
  65. S Wu, X Liu, T Hu et al. A biomimetic hierarchical scaffold: natural growth of nanotitanates on three-dimensional microporous Ti-based metals. Nano Letters. 2008;8(11):3803–3808.
  66. MP Staiger, AM Pietak, J Huadmai, et al. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials. 2006;27(9):1728–1734.
  67. B Heublein, R Rohde, V Kaese, et al. Biocorrosion of magnesium alloys: a new principle in cardiovascular implant technology? Heart. 2003;89(6):651–656.
  68. S Yoshizawa, A Brown, A Barchowsky, et al. Magnesium ion stimulation of bone marrow stromal cells enhances osteogenic activity, simulating the effect of magnesium alloy degradation. Acta Biomaterialia. 2014;10(6):2834–2842.
  69. E Zhang, L Xu, K Yang. Formation by ion plating of Ti-coating on pure Mg for biomedical applications. Scripta Materialia. 2005;53(5):523–527.
  70. F Geng, LL Tan, XX Jin, et al. The preparation, cytocompatibility, and in vitro biodegradation study of pure 𝛽-TCP on magnesium. Journal of Materials Science:Materials in Medicine. 2009;20(5):1149–1157.
  71. MM Erol, V Mourino, P Newby, et al. Copper-releasing,boron-containing bioactive glass-based scaffolds coated withalginate for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomaterialia. 2012;8(2):792–801.
  72. MG Cascone, N Barbani, C Cristallini, et al. Bioartificial polymeric materials based on polysaccharides. Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition. 2001;12(3):267–281.
  73. L Polo Corrales, M Latorre Esteves, JE Ramirez Vick. Scaffold design for bone regeneration. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 2014;14(1):15–56.
  74. N Thuaksuban, T Nuntanaranont, W Pattanachot, et al. Biodegradable polycaprolactonechitosan three-dimensional scaffolds fabricated by melt stretching and multilayer deposition for bone tissue engineering: assessment of the physical properties and cellular response. Biomedical Materials. 2011; 6(1):015009.
Creative Commons Attribution License

©2020 Anil, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.