Preliminary Application Research of 3D Bioprinting in Craniofacial Reconstruction. Issue 2 (19th March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yan, Yingjie; Zhang, Ziwei; Han, Wenqing; Sun, Mengzhe; Kim, Byeong Seop; Zhang, Yan; Xu, Haisong; Lei, Dong; Chai, Gang
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 34:Issue 2(2023)
• Page Start: 805
• Page End: 808
• Publication Date: 2023-03-19
• Subjects: bioprinting -- three-dimensional printing -- regenerative medicine -- craniofacial reconstruction; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000009113
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: In recent years, 3-dimensional (3D) printing has been widely used in regenerative medicine research and other fields because of its ability to customize macroscopic morphology and precisely control microstructure. Polymer scaffolds are 1 of the commonly used 3D bioprinting materials for defect repair and have recently been a research focus. Our article explored the bone-formation accelerating effect of 3D-printed porous scaffold Poly(glycerol sebacate) [PGS] in the critical bone defect of an enhancing rabbit mandibular model. Also, we overview and summarize the classification of 3D bioprinting materials and prospects for their various application scenarios in craniofacial reconstruction surgery. Materials and Methods: A PGS elastomer scaffold was prepared by polymerizing equimolar amounts of sebacic acid and glycerol using a biological 3D printer. Six male New Zealand white rabbits were prepared (3 for the control group and 3 for the PGS group), each weighing 3 kg. Osteotomy was performed at the anterior edge of the ascending ramus of the mandible with a bone saw to open the 8 mm defect. Defects of the control group were empty, and defects of the PGS group were put into 8 mm-wide PGS elastomer scaffolds. The rabbits were euthanized 6 weeks after the operation, and the postoperative mandibles were collected. Information (presence or absence of pus from infection, nonunion, degree of macroscopic bone healing) was recorded, and the skeletal tissue was fixed in a paraformaldehyde solution. Results: The mandible on the enhanced side was significantly longer than that on the opposite side, and the contralateral incisor was hyperplasia. The mandibles of rabbits in each group healed well, and there was no obvious local infection and purulence. The gross specimen appearance showed that both ends of the defect were connected. When comparing the reconstructed mandibles of the two groups, it is apparent that the width and thickness of the new bone in the PGS group were significantly better than that in the control group. Conclusions: This article verifies the effect of 3D polypore PGS scaffolds in animal craniomaxillofacial bone defects and introduces various application scenarios of 3D printing materials in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction surgery. There are quite good application prospects for 3D bioprinting in animal experiments and even clinical treatment of craniofacial defects.