Innovative Approaches in Bone Tissue Engineering: Strategies for Cancer Treatment and Recovery.

1. Introduction

Cancer is emerging as a leading cause of premature death worldwide [ 1 ]. The significant worldwide economic burden of cancer from 2020 to 2050 is anticipated to reach USD 25.2 trillion [ 2 ]. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be approximately 3970 new cases of primary cancer of the bones and joints in 2024, with 2270 cases in males and 1700 in females. It also estimates about 2050 deaths from this cancer (1100 in males and 950 in females). Osteosarcoma is the most common type of primary bone cancer, followed by chondrosarcoma and Ewing sarcomas [ 3 ].

Bone tumors, which invade bone tissue, can be categorized as primary or metastatic [ 4 ]. The major treatment method for bone cancer is surgical excision of malignancies. Pre-operative therapies, especially post-operative adjuvant anticancer methods, are critical for achieving excellent therapeutic outcomes. However, the occurrence of post-operative bone tumor recurrence, metastasis, substantial bone abnormalities, and infection are important hazards that might result in poor prognoses or even treatment failure. The treatment of bone cancer presents numerous problems, including the disease’s rarity and diversity, limitations in effective systemic medicines, difficulties with pain management, and the complex nature of surgical procedures. Addressing these problems requires constant research and innovation to develop more effective treatment techniques suited to the specific characteristics of bone sarcomas [ 5 ]. In recent years, substantial progress has been made in the development of tissue engineering (TE) in the area of bone cancer therapy and bone regeneration [ 6 ]. The purpose of this review is to explore and develop innovative approaches in bone tissue engineering (BTE) that specifically address the unique challenges faced in cancer treatment and recovery. Patients with cancer frequently experience complications related to bone integrity, including metastasis, lesions, and treatment-related skeletal side effects. This article aims to bridge the gap between oncology and regenerative medicine by enhanced bone regeneration, targeted drug delivery, multifunctional scaffolds, and functional integration.

BTE is an interdisciplinary field that uses biomaterials, scaffolds, cells, and regulatory signals to create site-specific structural and biological similarities during metastasis. These three pillars of BTE proposed by Langer and Vacanti [ 7 ] are shown in Figure 1 . Advances in BTE have resulted in creating porous microstructure scaffolds that can be seeded with human cells and growth factors for in vitro cancer metastasis studies. TE can revolutionize cancer research by enabling direct observation of tumorigenesis and migration at metastasis, a hallmark of cancer, which often involves neovascularization [ 8 , 9 ]. TE provides a viable option for bone regeneration by eliminating the requirement for tissue donors and allowing for a single surgical intervention, potentially lowering implant failure rates [ 10 , 11 ]. Recent advancements in TE include gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 to produce scaffolds that aid in tissue healing and regeneration. TE prompted the creation of novel approaches for regenerative medicine and disease modelling. Among the most significant recent advances in TE include the utilization of 3D bioprinting, organ-on-a-chip, and induced pluripotent stem cell technologies.

Primarily, BTE focuses on developing biocompatible, osteoconductive, or osteoinductive biomaterials for tissue regeneration [ 12 ]. Unfortunately, many of them showed a lack of cytocompatibility. According to the literature, poly (lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) biomaterials release acidic byproducts during degradation, which could cause serious tissue necrosis and implant failure. On the other hand, polyphosphazenes produce neutral or basic compounds during the degradation process. To address the issue of acidic byproducts from poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) in BTE, incorporating basic or bioactive fillers such as hydroxyapatite, calcium carbonate, or magnesium hydroxide into the PLGA scaffold can help neutralize the acidic environment while enhancing osteoconductivity. Additionally, blending PLGA with polyphosphazene, also releasing neutral or basic degradation products, creates a hybrid material with balanced pH and improved biocompatibility. Surface modifications, such as coating PLGA with bioactive glass or grafting alkaline functional groups, can further mitigate acidity. Employing slow-release alkaline buffers or adopting alternative polymers like polycaprolactone (PCL) can also ensure a stable environment conducive to bone regeneration, minimizing tissue damage and implant failure.

The current trend in biomaterials has represented biomimetic biomaterials (comprising organic and inorganic components) that would have the ability to mimic a natural bone environment, accelerating the regeneration process [ 13 ]. Tissue-engineered scaffolds offer physical support for bone defects and multimodal treatment of bone cancer, with nanoparticulate delivery systems repressing tumor growth and aiding new bone formation [ 14 ]. Nanoparticles (NPs) are at the forefront of nanotechnology, and their unique size-dependent features have shown promising impact on challenges faced by TE.

To date, the standard treatment for bone cancer combines surgery with chemotherapy, but it is laden with complications such as post-operative tumor recurrence and chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. BTE offers a revolutionary method for bone defect healing by using bioactive scaffolds made of metals, ceramics, and hydrogels. BTE has made outstanding progress in correcting skeletal abnormalities, especially in the context of tumoral pathologies. It provides promising ways for rebuilding injured bone. However, its implementation in the setting of tumoral pathologies such as osteosarcoma and bone metastases presents unique challenges. This includes removing cancerous cells, bone deformities, scaffolds, biocompatibility, biodegradability, vascularization, and patient-specific aspects. These limitations can be addressed by developing a multifunctional treatment platform that includes chemotherapeutic medications, photothermal agents (PTAs), photosensitizers (PSs), sound sensitizers (SSs), magnetic thermotherapeutic agents (MTAs), and naturally occurring anticancer chemicals [ 15 ].

Tumor-altered bone microenvironments have disturbed signaling pathways, reducing the efficacy of engineered constructs. Recent advances have included bioactive scaffolds like hydroxyapatite-functionalized gold NPs. These scaffolds interact with tumor-derived substances; including cytokines, growth factors, and extracellular vesicles, providing dual-action benefits by stimulating osteogenesis and delivering targeted anti-cancer medicines. Scaffolds are designed to release therapeutic compounds in response to certain stimuli, so improving bone regeneration and simultaneously preventing tumor progression by altering cell behavior, angiogenesis, and immune response. Similarly, 3D-bioprinted scaffolds infused with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) have shown promising impact in preclinical models for promoting bone regeneration while inhibiting tumor growth [ 16 , 17 ].

Innovative techniques, such as combining BTE constructs with targeted drug delivery, have shown effectiveness in osteosarcoma by achieving localized tumor ablation and bone healing. Furthermore, combinatory techniques, such as photothermal therapy combined with BTE constructs, have demonstrated efficacy in osteosarcoma animals by achieving localized tumor ablation while encouraging bone healing. These innovations underscore the need to design multifunctional BTE systems that address the dual objectives of tumor suppression and bone regeneration [ 18 ]. Figure 2 indicates the linkage of BTE with tumor pathologies and interactions.

Additionally, gene therapy has gained immense attention in bone repair and regeneration. It overcomes the limitation of protein delivery and is considered a promising method for maintaining the effective therapeutic concentration of local growth factors in bone defects. The integration of gene therapy with TE termed gene-activated matrix (GAM) scaffolds are utilized for bone regeneration, promoting tissue repair by uniformly incorporating cells within them. GAM may be accessible in many designs depending on the type of material, encoded protein, vector, and way of linking the material and vector [ 19 ].

GAM scaffolds promote bone regeneration by incorporating cells. Future studies should explore more advanced biomaterials. The fabrication of GAM with high transfection and long-term gene delivery efficiency with low cytotoxicity is still a challenging job [ 20 ].

2. Biomaterials

The unmet need for BTE makes it the second most transplanted organ after blood worldwide [ 21 ]. Autografts, allografts, and xenografts were the first therapeutic approaches used in bone tissue replacement [ 22 , 23 ]. The market for biomaterials-based orthopedic treatments is rapidly expanding due to the pressing clinical need. Previously, materials for implantation were designed to be ‘bio-inert’. However, materials scientists are now designing ‘bioactive’ materials that integrate with biological molecules or cells and regenerate tissues [ 24 ].

In the first Consensus Conference of the European Society for Biomaterials (ESB) in 1976, a biomaterial was defined as a nonviable material used in a medical device, intended to interact with biological systems. Several types of biomaterials (e.g., ceramics, synthetic and natural polymers) are used in the production of scaffolds for TE. Each biomaterial group has specific advantages and, needless to say, disadvantages. The use of composite scaffolds comprised of various phases is becoming increasingly prevalent [ 25 ].

2.1. Natural Polymers

Natural polymers were the first biodegradable biomaterials used clinically due to their similarities with bone extracellular matrix (ECM) [ 26 ]. Compared to conventional synthetic materials, natural polymers exhibit superior chemical versatility, excellent biodegradability, and improved biological performance (i.e., no toxicity, no immunological reactions, and intrinsic osteogenic capacities), which favor cell attachment and promote chemotactic responses [ 27 , 28 ]. The most commonly used natural polymers for building materials for BTE are collagen, gelatin, silk, alginate, cellulose, chitosan, and starch [ 29 ]. The natural polymers that are generally used for orthopedic applications are highlighted in Table 1 .

2.2. Synthetic Polymers

While natural biomaterials offer a favorable physiological context and enhance biological signaling mechanisms in 3D-cultured cancer cells, they each possess inherent limitations. These limitations can include batch-to-batch variability, relatively low elastic modulus (particularly in collagen and Matrigel), and inconsistencies in the presentation of bioactive ligands within 3D matrices. To overcome these limitations, synthetic biopolymers have been developed as a substitute for natural materials. These polymers include poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG), poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL), poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVA), poly (glycolic acid) (PGA), poly (lactic acid) (PLA), and their derivatives. In addition to PEG-based hydrogels, synthetic materials including PGA, PLA, PVA, and PCL have been used in cancer cell studies. The PGA or PLGA scaffolds could be engineered to have precise degradation rates and mechanical properties, making them suitable for bone regeneration. PLA is extensively used for 3D scaffolds and drug delivery systems. It supports cell attachment and proliferation. Due to ideal elastic properties, PCL is used for scaffolds and as a matrix for the delivery of growth factors and stem cells, respectively. In addition, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is frequently used in bone cement for stabilizing orthopedic implants and as filler in bone defects. Polyurethane (PU) scaffolds can mimic the elasticity of natural bone and have been explored for applications in both soft and hard TE. The silk fibroin could be beneficial in combination with other materials to create scaffolds for bone regeneration.

The components of these polymers are derived from natural metabolites; making them biodegradable and biocompatible in vitro, while also providing essential biological cues to encapsulated cells. Also, PGA has a higher rate of degradation compared to PLA; hence, PGA is used as a co-monomer with PLA to form PLGA to control the rate of degradation of the fabricated scaffolds [ 41 ].

2.3. Bioactive Ceramics

Bioactive ceramics bond directly with living tissue when implanted. Therefore, they have been extensively studied as biomaterials [ 25 ]. Bioceramics can stimulate bone growth by activating the BMP, MAPK, and Wnt/β-catenin pathways when combined with other factors. Bioceramics have certain limitations, such as restricted flexibility and tendency to break, along with challenges related to stem cell growth and difficulty of providing suitable supports for various bone shape. Ceramic bone implants offer long-term benefits like biocompatibility, low cost, osteoconductivity, and corrosion resistance. These biomaterials, composed of inorganic and nonmetallic solids, transform into bone-like structures at elevated temperatures. They have high tensile strength and form stable bonds with the host tissues [ 42 ]. Bioceramics, both natural and synthetic, are bioactive materials used in bone tissue repair, due to their high biocompatibility, low immunogenicity, and biodegradability; however, their applications are limited.

Bioceramics alone may not produce the best results for 3D-printed bone scaffolds [ 43 ]. As a result, polymers are generally preferred as the organic component in BTE, while bioceramics to serve as the inorganic component. Among the bioceramics frequently utilized for this purpose are hydroxyapatite (HA), β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), bioactive glasses (BGs), and calcium silicate (CaSi). HA has been widely used as ceramic material for fabricating bone scaffolds and implants [ 44 ]. HA is used in scaffold designs and dental procedures. Polymers like PLA/HA, silk fibrin/HA, HA/TCP, and collagen/HA/PLA are used as the matrix in scaffold fabrication. Calcium phosphate (CaP), the main component of bone, is used in bone restoration applications due to its mechanical properties. PLA, thermoplastic polyester, is a preferred material in 3D printing technology because of its biocompatibility, high mechanical strength, low cost, and compatibility with drug delivery systems. Blending with HA expands its potential applications in medicine. The optimized PLA/HA composite offers bioactive, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive properties, thereby encouraging future studies. Next to HA, β-TCP is a ceramic material with biocompatibility and biodegradation advantages, promoting bone formation due to its osteoconductive properties. Its enhanced solubility makes it effective for bone grafting in dental and orthopedic applications. The sintering efficiency of β-TCP, synthesized through solid-state reactions, thermal conversion, and precipitation is limited by phase transition, low temperature, and presence of pyrophosphate impurities. However, the efficiency of β-TCP sintering is constrained by three factors: (i) the phase transition β → α-TCP, which occurs at 1115–1150 °C and results in a volume increase, which typically leads to crack formation during the phase transition; (ii) this transition occurs at a relatively low temperature, which hinders the achievement of high densities; and (iii) sintering is sub-optimal when pyrophosphate impurities are present (indicated by a Ca/P molar ratio of less than 1.50). BGs, which are non-porous bioceramics made of silicon dioxide, calcium dioxide, sodium oxide, and phosphorus, are used in biomedical fields for bone tissue repair and regeneration [ 45 ].

BGs, when used in the ideal ratio of 50 wt.% SiO 2 , 25 wt.% CaO, and 25 wt.% Na 2 O, enhance biocompatibility and are utilized in biomedical fields for bone tissue repair and regeneration. They bond with bone, stimulate osteogenesis, release ions, and possess antimicrobial properties. Composites combining BGs with polymers or ceramics enhance their mechanical properties and biological performance. However, BGs have limitations, especially in load-bearing applications. Despite their applicability in the human body, they face limitations in material processability and production stages [ 46 ].

CaSi bioceramics are gaining interest in bone tissue repair biomaterials due to their high mechanical and bio-interactive properties. They can induce cell differentiation and release calcium and silicon ions, stimulating osteogenic and angiogenic differentiation. However, rapid degradation can lead cytotoxicity and influence cell behavior. Hydrothermal treatment has reduced the degradation of CaSi scaffolds. Natural polymers like peptides, polyesters, and polysaccharides have been used to prepare porous scaffolds for TE. Incorporating CaP in CaSi materials enhances their biological properties and apatite-forming ability [ 45 ].

TE is a promising strategy for repairing cartilage and bone tissue. Injectable hydrogels are ideal for 3D cell culture scaffolds due to their high water content, similarity to the natural extracellular matrix (ECM), porous framework for cell transplantation and proliferation, minimal invasive properties, and ability [ 46 ]. Nanoclay is used to make hydrogels and porous structures, which improves their mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and capacity to mimic the ECM. These nanoclay-composite hydrogels regulate cell processes such as proliferation, differentiation, and migration, allowing tissue regeneration. Hydrogels inherently possess a 3D network structure that mimics the ECM, allowing cells to grow, migrate, and organize like native tissues. This architecture supports cell attachment and proliferation, essential for tissue formation [ 47 ]. The mechanical properties of hydrogels can be tailored through modifications in polymer composition and cross-linking density. For instance, composites that incorporate materials like hydroxyapatite or eggshell particles enhance mechanical stability, making them suitable for load-bearing applications in bone regeneration. Composite hydrogels containing hydroxyapatite not only provide structural support but also release osteogenic factors that encourage bone formation. Studies have demonstrated that these composites can enhance mineralization by pre-osteoblasts without requiring specialized growth media [ 48 ].

2.4. Biocompatibility

A significant challenge in BTE is developing suitable biomaterials that are biocompatible, biodegradable, and possess appropriate mechanical properties. Various biomaterials, including ceramics, polymers, and composites, have been investigated look into new material combinations. Chitosan, a naturally occurring biopolymer derived from chitin, has garnered attention in BTE due to its biocompatibility, swelling ability, biodegradability, and support for cell adhesion and proliferation. Magnesium abundantly present in the human body has been utilized in biomaterials for orthopedic implants due to its mechanical properties and ability to promote bone growth. Magnesium plays a role in osteoblast differentiation, cellular adhesion, the inhibition of osteoclast activity, and immunomodulation [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ].

3. Scaffold Fabrication Techniques

Tissue-engineered synthetic bone substitutes are artificial scaffolds produced in labs to improve bone remodeling. They act as a 3D bone ECM, supporting cell attachment, mineral deposition, and mechanical support. Stem cells, such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and embryonic stem cells (ESCs), are important in bone thinning and engineering because of their ability to self-renew and specialize into diverse tissue types. MSCs produced from bone marrow, adipose tissue, or umbilical cord blood are valued for their osteogenic and immunomodulatory capabilities. iPSCs produced by patients can transform into osteoblasts, chondrocytes, or endothelial cells, which help to build bone matrix and vascular structures. ESCs produced from embryos can develop into all germ layers and can produce any cell type necessary for tissue formation [ 50 ].

Growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs), insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), and fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) promote cell differentiation and growth. BMPs stimulate bone and cartilage production, whereas VEGF increases angiogenesis, which is essential for scaffold fabrication. BMPs increase osteoinductivity, which encourages MSCs to develop into osteoblasts. IGFs, particularly IGF-1 and IGF-2, play crucial roles in bone formation and development by encouraging the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblast. TGF-β plays a crucial role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and repair, while also modulating immune responses and promoting tissue regeneration. FGFs play important roles in angiogenesis, wound healing, and embryonic development by promoting endothelial cell proliferation and vascularization [ 51 ].

3.1. Three-Dimensional Printing

Preparing a scaffold requires precise control of material, porous structure, and efficient mass transport. Traditional methods such as solution casting, electrospinning, and lyophilization cannot meet these criteria. Comparison of various 3D printing technologies is illustrated in Table 2 . Three-dimensional printing methods have been developed for BTE, providing particularly effective in treating complex bone defects in craniomaxillofacial operations. Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, is a rapid prototype technique that uses computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technologies to deposit materials layer by layer (LbL) to customize scaffold components. The low incidence of bone cancer, along with need for surgical resection, can lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Three-dimensional printing can overcome these limitations by creating scaffolds infused with chemotherapy and growth factors that promote bone regeneration.

Advancements in nanotechnology enable BTE by embedding NPs in 3D-printed scaffolds, enhancing mechanical properties and drug delivery capabilities [ 51 ]. Figure 3 indicates the 3D-printed scaffolds infused with NPs for targeted therapeutic action.

3.2. Electrospinning

Electrospinning is favored due to its versatility in fabricating randomly oriented fibers. Electrospinning is used to draw micron- and nanometer-sized nonwoven fibers through the electrostatic interactions of charged polymers. The scaffolds created often incorporate hydroxyapatite, a naturally occurring mineral in bone, to enhance osteoconductivity. The process uses an electric charge to draw polymer fibers from a solution, creating a fibrous mat that mimics the extracellular matrix for tissue growth [ 54 ].

3.3. Phase Separation

A technique that involves the separation of a polymer solution into two phases, leading to the formation of a porous scaffold as the solvent is removed. The nonsolvent-induced phase separation (NIPS) technique, which is normally used for manufacturing membranes, has proven to be an effective method for fabricating composite scaffolds with tunable porosity [ 55 ].

3.4. Lyophilization

The method involves freezing a polymer solution, followed by the sublimation of the frozen solvent, which results in a porous scaffold structure.

3.5. Calcium Phosphate Scaffold Fabrication

The application of 3D scaffolds based on calcium phosphate is extremely promising for BTE as a scaffold material. Calcium phosphate has several advantages as a bone graft material, including biodegradation, biocompatibility, and osteoconductivity. Most synthetic calcium phosphate materials used in clinical practice are based on tricalcium phosphate ceramics, which are reliable and osteoconductive [ 56 ].

3.6. Polymer Blending

Polymer-based composites are a group of biomaterials that are useful in BTE. Combining different polymers can achieve the desired mechanical and biological properties in the resulting scaffold.

3.7. Functionalization of Scaffolds

The scaffold design can be improved by including stem cells that can develop into bone-forming cells, such as adult MSCs, iPSCs, and ESCs. Careful manufacturing and adequate supply of nutrients are necessary. High water-content materials, such as hydrogels, facilitate cell inclusion. For example, Heo et al. successfully encapsulated MSCs and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) in a collagen/fibrin hydrogel, resulting in the MSCs’ development into osteogenic cells [ 57 ]. Scaffold-induced cell homing enhances the previous approach by incorporating chemokines and bioactive molecules, attracting stem cells to injury sites using biodegradable scaffolds are strategically placed. Critical molecules in this process include various mimetic peptide sequences, such as RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp), GFOGER (Gly-Phe-Hyp-Gly-Glu-Arg), YIGSR (Tyr-Ile-Gly-Ser-Arg), IKVAV (Ile-Lys-Val-Ala-Val), and REDV (Arg-Glu-Asp-Val). These peptides mimic natural ECM components, providing essential biochemical cues that promote cell attachment to improve osteoblast functionality and overall osteointegration within the host tissue.

Growth factors like BMP, TGF-β, VEGF, and FGF are often used in scaffolds to enhance their osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties. Particularly, BMP and VEGF regulate osteogenesis and angiogenesis, with optimal release rates of VEGF and BMP-2. Specifically, BMP-2 and VEGF were bound to the inner and outer polydopamine (PDA) layers, respectively, which resulted in their sequential adsorption and osteogenic and angiogenic synergy. Various BTE software is illustrated in Table 3 . Recent advances in 3D bioprinting combine bioactive ceramics for improved mechanical characteristics and employ biomaterials for scaffolds that enable cell growth and vascularization.

4. Advances in BTE

Professor Charles Hull pioneered 3D printing in the 1980s, inventing the first 3D printer [ 68 , 69 ]. Three-dimensional printing technology, also known as additive manufacturing, uses computer-aided design (CAD) software to build 3D models, which are then utilized to manufacture functioning tissue structures with complicated geometries to repair or regenerate damaged tissues and organs [ 70 , 71 , 72 ]. This technology provides greater precision and reproducibility, allowing for faster material preparation, shorter manufacturing times, and reduced manufacturing costs compared to traditional methods [ 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 ]. Tibbits of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) demonstrated four-dimensional printing (4D printing) technology at Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) 2013, allowing printed rope to fold into a three-dimensional structure when immersed in water, clearing the path for more research into 4D printing [ 77 ]. Four-dimensional printing enables 3D-printed objects to alter spontaneously and programmatically in response to certain external stimuli, allowing for pre-programmed changes in shape, nature, and scale [ 78 ]. Four-dimensional printing enables the preparation of complicated structures that are dynamic and intelligent, thereby accelerating bone healing. Five-dimensional printing employs a five-axis printing process, resulting in multi-dimensional objects that possess superior mechanical qualities while using fewer raw materials than 3D-printed objects. In recent years, 6D printing has emerged as a promising alternative to additive manufacturing technologies with numerous benefits. Additive manufacturing technology offers a wide range of applications [ 79 ].

Vascularization plays a crucial role in tissue repair and homeostasis. Neovascularization and blood vessel development are crucial for human growth and tissue repair. The processes of resorption and rebuilding maintain a dynamic balance throughout life. Annually, 25% of bone trabeculae and 3% of cortical bone are replaced, enhancing strength and reducing the risk of fracture through a strong vascular network [ 80 , 81 , 82 ]. Vascular insufficiency impairs tissue engineering graft survival, demanding early and appropriate vascularization to ensure cell survival and implant integration. Autologous bone grafts are the best bone grafting material for vascularization and osseointegration. The SVVYGLR peptide is an important component of osteopontin (OPN) and has a low molecular weight. This peptide is intended to promote neovascularization and improve internal ischemia in the bone healing material. Unlike RGD, which has a generic pro-adhesive effect, SVVYGLR is a specific pro-vascular peptide. While it did not increase EC proliferation, it significantly improved adhesion and lumen formation activities. Its vascularization effect is comparable to, or perhaps stronger than, that of VEGF. The OPN-derived SVVYGLR peptide, which has both provascularization and osteogenic effects, was covalently bonded to the surface of mesoporous calcium silicate (MCS) powder. This activated the scaffold material, resulting in the creation of an SVVYGLR-MCS composite scaffold using 3D printing technology.

Kuss et al. generated a short-term hypoxic preconditioning approach for 3D-printed scaffolds that uses a bio-ink composed of polycaprolactone/hydroxyapatite and stromal vascular fraction cell-laden hydrogel [ 83 ]. The scaffolds were transplanted into athymic mice, indicating the feasibility of prevascularization for 3D bone tissue engineering applications. Chen et al. created PDACS/PCL scaffolds by loading hydrogels with MSCs and ECs [ 84 ]. Kan et al. created a 3D-printed bone construct that incorporates an integrated tissue-organ printer [ 85 ]. Rukavina et al. used extrusion-based and drop-on-demand bioprinting methods to create pre-vascularized bone tissue using bioink-containing cells [ 86 ].

Genetic engineering and regenerative medicine can improve the functionality of vascularized scaffolds. Lin et al. created bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells expressing the BMP-2 gene, which were subsequently encased in 3D-printed hydrogel scaffolds [ 87 ]. Cunnife et al. created a gene-activated bio-ink using plasmids, alginate, BMSCs, and nano-hydroxyapatite to promote vascularization and mineralization [ 88 ].

Bionics and biomaterials are closely linked in bone tissue engineering, offering better biocompatibility and osseointegration [ 89 ]. Bionic scaffolds were developed as a solution to the challenge of achieving centralized vascularization in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Bionics is classified into three major categories: 3D-printed structures include scaffolds with hollow pipes (“core”), stents with vascular tips (“shell”), and scaffolds with hydrogels (“core”).

Four-dimensional printing technology is an additive manufacturing technology that involves intelligent materials. Intelligent materials that response to external stimuli, are widely used in sensors, actuators, soft robots, medical devices, and artificial muscles, including shape memory polymers (SMPs), shape memory alloys (SMAs), and electroactive polymers (EAPs). Electroactive polymers (EAPs) are a new type of intelligent material having advantages such as being a lightweight, high-performance, and seismically efficient material along with unique electrical and mechanical properties, making them a potential biomimetic material for artificial muscle actuators [ 90 ]. Devillard et al. utilized 4D printing to embed thrombin and alkaline phosphatase in bio-ink, enabling localized and pre-programmed calcifications of 3D object parts. This method allows formation of vascularized alveolar bone constructs, offering new directions for multiactive 4D-printed vascularized bone tissue [ 91 ]. The research demonstrates that encapsulated alkaline phosphatase can calcify 3D object parts and create fibrin biofilms, enabling the creation of vascularized alveolar bone constructs. This advancement in 4D printing technology could enhance the shape and function of traditional 3D-printed bone structures for future clinical applications. This advancement aligns with the ongoing shift toward personalized and precision medicine, where treatments are increasingly tailored to the needs of individual patients. FDA-approved vascularized 3D-printed bone repair materials are cutting-edge solutions in BTE, designed to mimic natural bone structure and promote vascularization essential for healing. Made from biocompatible materials like hydroxyapatite, bioresorbable polymers, or composites, these scaffolds are precisely customized using advanced 3D printing to fit patient-specific defects. Table 4 illustrates the FDA-approved vascularized 3D-printed bone repair materials.

Five-dimensional and 6D printing technologies are emerging in the revolution of printing technology, while 3D and 4D printing face challenges [ 92 ]. Professor William Yerazunis initiated 5D printing, which can be carried out on traditional axes as well as two additional axes, involving the motion of the printing head and the rotation of the print bed [ 93 ]. Five-dimensional printing is a new additive manufacturing technology that creates multidimensional products, particularly curved layers, using five-axis printers. It offers a competitive advantage over 3D printing, and can produce stronger objects using less material. Five-dimensional printing is particularly useful for artificial bone production, as it can create complex and strong implants with curved surfaces. Six-dimensional printing, a combination of 4D and 5D printing, offers the ability to print in multiple directions and along complex paths, resulting in more elaborate products that possess both structural integrity and intelligence. It also reduces the use of raw material and provides shorter processing times [ 94 , 95 ]. Five-dimensional and 6D printing have advantages; however, their industrialization is limited due to increased costs, a lack of value for technical progress, and the necessity for precise software and hardware. Furthermore, specialized human resources are required for operation and maintenance, leading to greater time and financial expense. To conquer certain limitations and improve 3D printing in BTE, artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML), could provide a promising way for materials development and optimization. AI algorithms can analyze vast datasets to identify optimal scaffold designs that enhance mechanical properties and biological compatibility. Techniques such as ML and neural networks could predict how different design parameters affect cell behavior and tissue integration. AI facilitates the creation of customized scaffold geometries based on individual patient anatomy.

Traditional therapies that combine surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation have reached their limits of efficacy, motivating efforts to develop new therapeutic methods. The development of biomaterials offers innovative options for the treatment of bone tumors. Suitable biomaterials can simultaneously provide tumor therapy and promote bone regeneration.

Recent advances in BTE for cancer patients incorporate NMs, smart materials, 3D bioprinting, electrospinning, and drug delivery systems. Additionally, AI, machine learning, and CRISPR-based gene editing enhance scaffold design, personalize treatments, and modify stem cell activity for the management of oncological patients [ 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 ]. The integration of advanced biomaterials, innovative techniques, and bioactive molecules in BTE presents a promising avenue for addressing the unique challenges faced by oncological patients. Biomaterials, techniques, and molecules that link the implications of BTE in oncological patients are depicted in Table 5 .

5. Conclusions and Future Prospects

In conclusion, it will be vital to address the multifaceted challenges posed by bone tumors and to enhance therapeutic strategies through pioneering research in TE, biomaterials, and advanced manufacturing technologies as these efforts will shape the future landscape of cancer treatment. The development of multi-functional, biocompatible scaffolds has become an essential focus in the field of BTE. The potential of 3D and 4D printing technologies to create personalized scaffolds tailored to individual anatomical and biological needs promises to revolutionize traditional treatment paradigms in orthopedic oncology. As these innovations continue to evolve, they promise to significantly improve the quality of life and survival rates for patients with bone cancers. Moreover, the role of AI and machine learning in BTE is expected to expand, enabling the optimization of scaffold design and material selection through the analysis of extensive datasets. AI applications may facilitate rapid prototyping and iterative design processes, ultimately leading to in faster translations of innovations from the lab to the clinic.

Future studies should prioritize investigating new biomaterials that not only possess biocompatible and osteoconductive properties but also have bioactive reinforcement through gene editing and enhanced growth factor delivery systems. Investigating patient-specific solutions using advanced imaging technologies and adaptive manufacturing strategies, such as 6D printing, may further enhance the dynamic capabilities of the field.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Datta Meghe College of Pharmacy, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (DU), Wardha, India, and AlMaarefa University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for their support and facilities to publish article.

Author Contributions

S.S.K.: Formal analysis: Investigation, Writing—original draft; M.D.: Supervision and Review, Editing; U.V.: Methodology and Software; R.G.I.: Conceptualization, Visualization, Review, and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

1. Bray F., Laversanne M., Weiderpass E., Soerjomataram I. The ever-increasing importance of cancer as a leading cause of premature death worldwide. Cancer. 2021;127:3029–3030. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33587.

2. Chen S., Cao Z., Prettner K., Kuhn M., Yang J., Jiao L., Wang Z., Li W., Geldsetzer P., Bärnighausen T., et al. Estimates and projections of the global economic cost of 29 cancers in 204 countries and territories from 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9:465–472. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7826.

3. [(accessed on 17 June 2024)]. Available online: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/bone-cancer/about/key-statistics.html .

4. Siclari V.A., Qin L. Targeting the osteosarcoma cancer stem cell. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2010;5:78. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-5-78.

5. Nakano K. Challenges of systemic therapy investigations for bone sarcomas. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23:3540. doi: 10.3390/ijms23073540.

6. Wang Y., Zhang H., Qiang H., Li M., Cai Y., Zhou X., Xu Y., Yan Z., Dong J., Gao Y., et al. Innovative Biomaterials for Bone Tumor Treatment and Regeneration: Tackling Postoperative Challenges and Charting the Path Forward. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2024;1:2304060. doi: 10.1002/adhm.202304060.

7. Vacanti J.P., Langer R. Tissue engineering: The design and fabrication of living replacement devices for surgical reconstruction and transplantation. Lancet. 1999;354:S32–S34. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)90247-7.

8. Hanahan D., Weinberg R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–674. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.

9. Carmeliet P., Jain R.K. Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature. 2000;407:249–257. doi: 10.1038/35025220.

10. Kolk A., Handschel J., Drescher W., Rothamel D., Kloss F., Blessmann M., Heiland M., Wolff K.D., Smeets R. Current trends and future perspectives of bone substitute materials–from space holders to innovative biomaterials. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2012;40:706–718. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.01.002.

11. Lanza R., Langer R., Vacanti J.P., Atala A., editors. Principles of Tissue Engineering. Academic Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2020. p. 26.

12. Augustine R., Gezek M., Nikolopoulos V.K., Buck P.L., Bostanci N.S., Camci-Unal G. Stem Cells in Bone Tissue Engineering: Progress, Promises and Challenges. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 2024;19:1692–1731. doi: 10.1007/s12015-024-10738-y.

13. Kazimierczak P., Przekora A. Osteoconductive and osteoinductive surface modifications of biomaterials for bone regeneration: A concise review. Coatings. 2020;10:971. doi: 10.3390/coatings10100971.

14. Shanmugavadivu A., Lekhavadhani S., Miranda P.J., Selvamurugan N. Current approaches in tissue engineering-based nanotherapeutics for osteosarcoma treatment. Biomed. Mater. 2024;2:351–357. doi: 10.1088/1748-605X/ad270b.

15. Zhang H., Wang Y., Qiang H., Leng D., Yang L., Hu X., Chen F., Zhang T., Gao J., Yu Z. Exploring the frontiers: The potential and challenges of bioactive scaffolds in osteosarcoma treatment and bone regeneration. Mater. Today Bio. 2024;29:101276. doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101276.

16. Ni T., Liu M., Zhang Y., Cao Y., Pei R. 3D bioprinting of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-laden silk fibroin double network scaffolds for cartilage tissue repair. Bioconjug. Chem. 2020;31:1938–1947. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.0c00298.

17. Tang X., Zhou F., Wang S., Wang G., Bai L., Su J. Bioinspired injectable hydrogels for bone regeneration. J. Adv. Res. 2024 doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2024.10.032.

18. Ma L., Feng X., Liang H., Wang K., Song Y., Tan L., Wang B., Luo R., Liao Z., Li G., et al. A novel photothermally controlled multifunctional scaffold for clinical treatment of osteosarcoma and tissue regeneration. Mater. Today. 2020;36:48–62. doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2019.12.005.

19. Krasilnikova O., Yakimova A., Ivanov S., Atiakshin D., Kostin A.A., Sosin D., Shegay P., Kaprin A.D., Klabukov I. Gene-Activated Materials in Regenerative Dentistry: Narrative Review of Technology and Study Results. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24:16250. doi: 10.3390/ijms242216250.

20. Esmaeili Y., Bidram E., Bigham A., Atari M., Azadani R.N., Tavakoli M., Salehi S., Mirhaj M., Basiri A., Mirzavandi Z., et al. Exploring the evolution of tissue engineering strategies over the past decade: From cell-based strategies to gene-activated matrix. Alex. Eng. J. 2023;81:137–169. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.08.080.

21. Henkel J., Woodruff M.A., Epari D.R., Steck R., Glatt V., Dickinson I.C., Choong P.F., Schuetz M.A., Hutmacher D.W. Bone regeneration based on tissue engineering conceptions—A 21st century perspective. Bone Res. 2013;1:216–248. doi: 10.4248/BR201303002.

22. Albrektsson T., Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur. Spine J. 2001;10((Suppl. S2)):S96–S101. doi: 10.1007/s005860100282.

23. Giannoudis P.V., Dinopoulos H., Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: An update. Injury. 2005;36:S20–S27. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.029.

24. Stevens M.M. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Mater. Today. 2008;11:18–25. doi: 10.1016/S1369-7021(08)70086-5.

25. O’brien F.J. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater. Today. 2011;14:88–95.

26. Stevens M.M., George J.H. Exploring and engineering the cell surface interface. Science. 2005;310:1135–1138. doi: 10.1126/science.1106587.

27. Carvalho P.P., Rodrigues M.T., Reis R.L., Gomes M.E. Starch-Based Blends in Tissue Engineering. Biomater. Nat. Adv. Devices Ther. 2016;14:244–257.

28. Pina S., Oliveira J.M., Reis R.L. Natural-based nanocomposites for BTE and regenerative medicine: A review. Adv. Mater. 2015;27:1143–1169. doi: 10.1002/adma.201403354.

29. Rodríguez G.R., Patrício T.M., López J.D. Bone Repair Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing; Cambridge, UK: 2019. Natural polymers for bone repair; pp. 199–232.

30. Albu M.G., Titorencu I., Ghica M.V. Biomaterials Applications for Nanomedicine. IntechOpen; London, UK: 2011. Collagen-Based Drug Delivery Systems for Tissue Engineering.

31. Gorgieva S., Kokol V. Collagen-vs. gelatine-based biomaterials and their biocompatibility: Review and perspectives. Biomater. Appl. Nanomed. 2011;2:17–52.

32. Bhattacharjee P., Kundu B., Naskar D., Kim H.W., Maiti T.K., Bhattacharya D., Kundu S.C. Silk scaffolds in bone tissue engineering: An overview. Acta Biomater. 2017;63:1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.09.027.

33. Liu X., Zhang K.Q. Silk fiber—Molecular formation mechanism, structure-property relationship and advanced applications. Oligomerization Chem. Biol. Compd. 2014;3:69–102.

34. Vepari C., Kaplan D.L. Silk as a biomaterial. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2007;32:991–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.013.

35. Lee K.Y., Mooney D.J. Alginate: Properties and biomedical applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012;37:106–126. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.003.

36. Moon R.J., Martini A., Nairn J., Simonsen J., Youngblood J. Cellulose nanomaterials review: Structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011;40:3941–3994. doi: 10.1039/c0cs00108b.

37. Cai Z., Kim J. Preparation and characterization of novel bacterial cellulose/gelatin scaffold for tissue regeneration using bacterial cellulose hydrogel. J. Nanotechnol. Eng. Med. 2010;1:021002. doi: 10.1115/1.4000858.

38. Ruiz G.A., Corrales H.F. Chitosan, chitosan derivatives and their biomedical applications. Biol. Act. Appl. Mar. Polysacch. 2017;11:87

39. Shi C., Yuan Z., Han F., Zhu C., Li B. Polymeric biomaterials for bone regeneration. Ann. Jt. 2016;1:9. doi: 10.21037/aoj.2016.11.02.

40. Wang S., Copeland L. Effect of acid hydrolysis on starch structure and functionality: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015;55:1081–1097. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.684551.

41. Pradhan S., Hassani I., Clary J.M., Lipke E.A. Polymeric biomaterials for in vitro cancer tissue engineering and drug testing applications. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2016;22:470–484. doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2015.0567.

42. Tanvir M.A., Khaleque M.A., Kim G.H., Yoo W.Y., Kim Y.Y. The Role of Bioceramics for Bone Regeneration: History, Mechanisms, and Future Perspectives. Biomimetics. 2024;9:230. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics9040230.

43. LogithKumar R., KeshavNarayan A., Dhivya S., Chawla A., Saravanan S., Selvamurugan N. A review of chitosan and its derivatives in bone tissue engineering. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016;151:172–188. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.05.049.

44. Saravanan S., Vimalraj S., Thanikaivelan P., Banudevi S., Manivasagam G. A review on injectable chitosan/beta glycerophosphate hydrogels for bone tissue regeneration. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019;121:38–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.014.

45. Cinici B., Yaba S., Kurt M., Yalcin H.C., Duta L., Gunduz O. Fabrication Strategies for Bioceramic Scaffolds in Bone Tissue Engineering with Generative Design Applications. Biomimetics. 2024;9:409. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics9070409.

46. Kim K.J., Choi S., Sang Cho Y., Yang S.J., Cho Y.S., Kim K.K. Magnesium ions enhance infiltration of osteoblasts in scaffolds via increasing cell motility. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2017;28:96. doi: 10.1007/s10856-017-5908-5.

47. Wu L., Feyerabend F., Schilling A.F., Willumeit-Römer R., Luthringer B.J. Effects of extracellular magnesium extract on the proliferation and differentiation of human osteoblasts and osteoclasts in coculture. Acta Biomater. 2015;27:294–304. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.08.042.

48. Lu W.C., Pringa E., Chou L. Effect of magnesium on the osteogenesis of normal human osteoblasts. Magnes. Res. 2017;30:42. doi: 10.1684/mrh.2017.0422.

49. Zhao N., Zhu D. Collagen self-assembly on orthopedic magnesium biomaterials surface and subsequent bone cell attachment. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e110420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110420.

50. Percival K.M., Paul V., Husseini G.A. Recent Advancements in Bone Tissue Engineering: Integrating Smart Scaffold Technologies and Bio-Responsive Systems for Enhanced Regeneration. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024;25:6012. doi: 10.3390/ijms25116012.

51. Al Sawaftah N.M., Pitt W.G., Husseini G.A. Incorporating nanoparticles in 3D printed scaffolds for bone cancer therapy. Bioprinting. 2023;31:e00322. doi: 10.1016/j.bprint.2023.e00322.

52. Mattioli-Belmonte M., De Maria C., Vitale-Brovarone C., Baino F., Dicarlo M., Vozzi G. Pressure-activated microsyringe (PAM) fabrication of bioactive glass–poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) composite scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2017;11:1986–1997. doi: 10.1002/term.2095.

53. Wang Z., Huang C., Wang J., Zou B. Development of a novel aqueous hydroxyapatite suspension for stereolithography applied to bone tissue engineering. Ceram. Int. 2019;45:3902–3909. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.11.063.

54. Lyu S., Huang C., Yang H., Zhang X. Electrospun Fibers as a Scaffolding Platform for Bone Tissue Repair. J. Orthop. Res. 2013;31:1382–1389. doi: 10.1002/jor.22367.

55. Aydin M.S., Sahin M., Dogan Z., Kiziltas G. Microstructural Characterization of PCL-HA Bone Scaffolds Based on Nonsolvent-Induced Phase Separation. ACS Omega. 2023;8:47595–47605. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c05616.

56. Parfenov V.A., Mironov V.A., Koudan E.V., Nezhurina E.K., Karalkin P.A., Pereira F.D., Petrov S.V., Krokhmal A.A., Aydemir T., Vakhrushev I.V., et al. Fabrication of calcium phosphate 3D scaffolds for bone repair using magnetic levitational assembly. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:4013. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61066-3.

57. Heo D.N., Hospodiuk M., Ozbolat I.T. Synergistic interplay between human MSCs and HUVECs in 3D spheroids laden in collagen/fibrin hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2019;95:348–356. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.02.046.

58. Al-Hammadi A.S., Saidin S., Ramlee M.H. Simulation Analyses Related to Human Bone Scaffold: Utilisation of Solidworks® Software in 3D Modelling and Mechanical Simulation Analyses. J. Hum. Centered Technol. 2022;1:97–104. doi: 10.11113/humentech.v1n2.28.

59. Chen Y., Pan X., Li Z. Analysis of mechanical properties in scaffolds using melt electrospinning. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2020;116:111229

60. Li S., Cui S., Liu Y. Simpleware for laser-assisted bioprinting in bone tissue research. J. Appl. Biomat Funct. Mater. 2022;20:1–10.

61. Amini A.R., Laurencin C.T., Nukavarapu S.P. Bone tissue engineering: Recent advances and challenges. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2012;40:363–408. doi: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v40.i5.10.

62. Kargozar S., Hashemian S.J., Soleimani M., Milan P.B., Askari M., Khalaj V., Samadikuchaksaraie A., Hamzehlou S., Katebi A.R., Latifi N., et al. Acceleration of bone regeneration in bioactive glass/gelatin composite scaffolds seeded with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells over-expressing bone morphogenetic protein-7. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2017;75:688–698. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.097.

63. Awad H.A., O’Keefe R.J., Mao J.J. Principles of Tissue Engineering. Academic Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2020. Bone tissue engineering; pp. 1511–1519.

64. Chocholata P., Kulda V., Babuska V. Fabrication of scaffolds for bone-tissue regeneration. Materials. 2019;12:568. doi: 10.3390/ma12040568.

65. Nyberg E., Rindone A., Dorafshar A., Grayson W.L. Comparison of 3D-printed poly-ɛ-caprolactone scaffolds functionalized with tricalcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, bio-oss, or decellularized bone matrix. Tissue Eng. Part A. 2017;23:503–514. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0418.

66. Li M., Sun D., Zhang J., Wang Y., Wei Q., Wang Y. Application and development of 3D bioprinting in cartilage tissue engineering. Biomater. Sci. 2022;10:5430–5458. doi: 10.1039/D2BM00709F.

67. Yu C., Ma X., Zhu W., Wang P., Miller K.L., Stupin J., Koroleva-Maharajh A., Hairabedian A., Chen S. Scanningless and continuous 3D bioprinting of human tissues with decellularized extracellular matrix. Biomaterials. 2019;194:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.12.009.

68. Kelly B.E., Bhattacharya I., Heidari H., Shusteff M., Spadaccini C.M., Taylor H.K. Volumetric additive manufacturing via tomographic reconstruction. Science. 2019;363:1075–1079. doi: 10.1126/science.aau7114.

69. Hull C.W. Apparatus for Production of Three-Dimensional Objects by Stereolithography. US 4,575,330. U.S. Patent. 1986 March 11;

70. Hart A.J., Rao A. How to print a 3D object all at once. Science. 2019;363:1042–1043. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw7062.

71. Liang K., Carmone S., Brambilla D., Leroux J.C. 3D-printing of a wearable personalized oral delivery device: A first-in-human study. Sci. Adv. 2018;4:eaat2544. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aat2544.

72. Lee A.R., Hudson A.R., Shiwarski D.J., Tashman J.W., Hinton T.J., Yerneni S., Bliley J.M., Campbell P.G., Feinberg A.W. 3D bioprinting of collagen to rebuild components of the human heart. Science. 2019;365:482–487. doi: 10.1126/science.aav9051.

73. Murphy S.V., De Coppi P., Atala A. Opportunities and challenges of translational 3D bioprinting. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2020;4:370–380. doi: 10.1038/s41551-019-0471-7.

74. Li J., Pumera M. 3D-printing of functional microrobots. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021;50:2794–2838. doi: 10.1039/D0CS01062F.

75. Ouyang L., Armstrong J.P., Lin Y., Wojciechowski J.P., Lee-Reeves C., Hachim D., Zhou K., Burdick J.A., Stevens M.M. Expanding and optimizing 3D bioprinting capabilities using complementary network bioinks. Sci. Adv. 2020;6:eabc5529. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc5529.

76. Urciuolo A., Poli I., Brandolino L., Raffa P., Scattolini V., Laterza C., Giobbe G.G., Zambaiti E., Selmin G., Magnussen M., et al. Intravital three-dimensional bioprinting. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2020;4:901–915. doi: 10.1038/s41551-020-0568-z.

77. Tibbits S. The Emergence of “4D-Printing”. Volume 10 TED Talk; New york, NY, USA: 2013.

78. Ding Z., Yuan C., Peng X., Wang T., Qi H.J., Dunn M.L. Direct 4D-printing via active composite materials. Sci. Adv. 2017;3:e1602890. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602890.

79. Gillaspie E.A., Matsumoto J.S., Morris N.E., Downey R.J., Shen K.R., Allen M.S., Blackmon S.H. From 3-dimensional printing to 5-dimensional printing: Enhancing thoracic surgical planning and resection of complex tumors. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016;101:1958–1962. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.12.075.

80. Augustin H.G., Koh G.Y. Organotypic vasculature: From descriptive heterogeneity to functional pathophysiology. Science. 2017;357:eaal2379. doi: 10.1126/science.aal2379.

81. Jia F., Ruan L., Du C., Liu Y., Cai X., Dou R., Zhang J., Liu X., Chen J., Zhang X., et al. The nanoformula of zoledronic acid and calcium carbonate targets osteoclasts and reverses osteoporosis. Biomaterials. 2023;296:122059. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122059.

82. Zhou J., Zhang Z., Joseph J., Zhang X., Ferdows B.E., Patel D.N., Chen W., Banfi G., Molinaro R., Cosco D., et al. Biomaterials and nanomedicine for bone regeneration: Progress and future prospects. Exploration. 2021;1:20210011. doi: 10.1002/EXP.20210011.

83. Kuss M.A., Harms R., Wu S., Wang Y., Untrauer J.B., Carlson M.A., Duan B. Short-term hypoxic preconditioning promotes prevascularization in 3D bioprinted bone constructs with stromal vascular fraction derived cells. RSC Adv. 2017;7:29312–29320. doi: 10.1039/C7RA04372D.

84. Chen Y.W., Shen Y.F., Ho C.C., Yu J., Wu Y.H., Wang K., Shih C.T., Shie M.Y. Osteogenic and angiogenic potentials of the cell-laden hydrogel/mussel-inspired calcium silicate complex hierarchical porous scaffold fabricated by 3D bioprinting. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2018;91:679–687. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.06.005.

85. Kang H.W., Lee S.J., Ko I.K., Kengla C., Yoo J.J., Atala A. A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat. Biotechnol. 2016;34:312–319. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3413.

86. Rukavina P., Koch F., Wehrle M., Tröndle K., Björn Stark G., Koltay P., Zimmermann S., Zengerle R., Lampert F., Strassburg S., et al. In vivo evaluation of bioprinted prevascularized bone tissue. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2020;117:3902–3911. doi: 10.1002/bit.27527.

87. Lin H., Tang Y., Lozito T.P., Oyster N., Wang B., Tuan R.S. Efficient in vivo bone formation by BMP-2 engineered human mesenchymal stem cells encapsulated in a projection stereolithographically fabricated hydrogel scaffold. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2019;10:254. doi: 10.1186/s13287-019-1350-6.

88. Cunniffe G.M., Gonzalez-Fernandez T., Daly A., Sathy B.N., Jeon O., Alsberg E., Kelly D.J. Three-dimensional bioprinting of polycaprolactone reinforced gene activated bioinks for bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. Part A. 2017;23:891–900. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0498.

89. Tertuliano O.A., Greer J.R. The nanocomposite nature of bone drives its strength and damage resistance. Nat. Mater. 2016;15:1195–1202. doi: 10.1038/nmat4719.

90. Miri A.K., Khalilpour A., Cecen B., Maharjan S., Shin S.R., Khademhosseini A. Multiscale bioprinting of vascularized models. Biomaterials. 2019;198:204–216. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.006.

91. Devillard C.D., Mandon C.A., Lambert S.A., Blum L.J., Marquette C.A. Bioinspired multi-activities 4D-printing objects: A new approach toward complex tissue engineering. Biotechnol. J. 2018;13:1800098. doi: 10.1002/biot.201800098.

92. Kumar P.R., Tech M., Roy S.U., Hegde H.A., Bharti S.H., Kumar M.A. 4D and 5D-printing: Healthcare’s new edge. 3D Print Technol. Nanomed. 2019;143:143–163.

93. Akhtar M.N., Haleem A., Javaid M., Mathur S., Vaish A., Vaishya R. Artificial intelligence-based orthopaedic perpetual design. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma. 2024;49:102356. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102356.

94. Zeijderveld J.V. Sculpteo Report [Internet] Sculpteo; Villejuif, France: 2018. 5D-printing: A new branch of additive manufacturing.

95. Haleem A., Javaid M. Expected applications of five-dimensional (5D) printing in the medical field. Curr. Med. Res. Pract. 2019;9:208. doi: 10.1016/j.cmrp.2019.07.011.

96. Zhang H., Wang M., Wu R., Guo J., Sun A., Li Z., Ye R., Xu G., Cheng Y. From materials to clinical use: Advances in 3D-printed scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2023;25:24244–24263. doi: 10.1039/D3CP00921A.

97. Dong J., Ding H., Wang Q., Wang L. A 3D-Printed Scaffold for Repairing Bone Defects. Polymers. 2024;16:706. doi: 10.3390/polym16050706.

98. Gharibshahian M., Salehi M., Beheshtizadeh N., Kamalabadi-Farahani M., Atashi A., Nourbakhsh M.S., Alizadeh M. Recent advances on 3D-printed PCL-based composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2023;11:1168504. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1168504.

99. Cui H., Zhu W., Holmes B., Zhang L.G. Biologically inspired smart release system based on 3D bioprinted perfused scaffold for vascularized tissue regeneration. Adv. Sci. 2016;3:1600058. doi: 10.1002/advs.201600058.

100. Augustine R., Nikolopoulos V.K., Camci-Unal G. Hydrogel-Impregnated Self-Oxygenating Electrospun Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Bioengineering. 2023;10:854. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10070854.

101. Zha Y., Li Y., Lin T., Chen J., Zhang S., Wang J. Progenitor cell-derived exosomes endowed with VEGF plasmids enhance osteogenic induction and vascular remodeling in large segmental bone defects. Theranostics. 2021;11:397. doi: 10.7150/thno.50741.

102. Wang L., Zhu L.X., Wang Z., Lou A.J., Yang Y.X., Guo Y., Liu S., Zhang C., Zhang Z., Hu H.S., et al. Development of a centrally vascularized tissue engineering bone graft with the unique core-shell composite structure for large femoral bone defect treatment. Biomaterials. 2018;175:44–60. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.017.

103. Anada T., Pan C.C., Stahl A.M., Mori S., Fukuda J., Suzuki O., Yang Y. Vascularized bone-mimetic hydrogel constructs by 3D bioprinting to promote osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:1096. doi: 10.3390/ijms20051096.

104. Vidal L., Kampleitner C., Krissian S., Brennan M.A., Hoffmann O., Raymond Y., Maazouz Y., Ginebra M.P., Rosset P., Layrolle P. Regeneration of segmental defects in metatarsus of sheep with vascularized and customized 3D-printed calcium phosphate scaffolds. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:7068. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63742-w.

105. Li B., Ruan C., Ma Y., Huang Z., Huang Z., Zhou G., Zhang J., Wang H., Wu Z., Qiu G. Fabrication of vascularized bone flaps with sustained release of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 and arteriovenous bundle. Tissue Eng. Part A. 2018;24:1413–1422. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2018.0002.

106. Feng C., Zhang W., Deng C., Li G., Chang J., Zhang Z., Jiang X., Wu C. 3D-printing of lotus root-like biomimetic materials for cell delivery and tissue regeneration. Adv. Sci. 2017;4:1700401. doi: 10.1002/advs.201700401.

107. Zhang M., Lin R., Wang X., Xue J., Deng C., Feng C., Zhuang H., Ma J., Qin C., Wan L., et al. 3D-printing of Haversian bone–mimicking scaffolds for multicellular delivery in bone regeneration. Sci. Adv. 2020;6:eaaz6725. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz6725.

108. Damiri F., Fatimi A., Musuc A.M., Santos A.C., Paszkiewicz S., Idumah C.I., Singh S., Varma R.S., Berrada M. Nano-hydroxyapatite (nHAp) scaffolds for bone regeneration: Preparation, characterization and biological applications. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2024;18:105601. doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2024.105601.

109. Nika D.L., Balandin A.A. Phonons and thermal transport in graphene and graphene-based materials. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2017;80:036502. doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/80/3/036502.

110. Peng Z., Zhao T., Zhou Y., Li S., Li J., Leblanc R.M. Bone tissue engineering via carbon?based nanomaterials. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2020;9:1901495. doi: 10.1002/adhm.201901495.

111. Lavanya K., Chandran S.V., Balagangadharan K., Selvamurugan N.J. Temperature-and pH-responsive chitosan-based injectable hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2020;111:110862. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.110862.

112. Dasari A., Xue J., Deb S. Magnetic nanoparticles in bone tissue engineering. Nanomaterials. 2022;12:757. doi: 10.3390/nano12050757.

113. Sankaranarayanan A., Ramprasad A., Ganesh S.S., Ganesh H., Ramanathan B., Shanmugavadivu A., Selvamurugan N. Nanogels for bone tissue engineering-from synthesis to application. Nanoscale. 2023;15:10206–10222. doi: 10.1039/D3NR01246H.

114. She J., Liu J., Mu Y., Lv S., Tong J., Liu L., He T., Wang J., Wei D. Recent advances in collagen-based hydrogels: Materials, preparation and applications. React. Funct. Polym. 2024;12:106136. doi: 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2024.106136.

115. Wu E., Huang L., Shen Y., Wei Z., Li Y., Wang J., Chen Z. Application of gelatin-based composites in bone tissue engineering. Heliyon. 2024;10:e36258. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36258.

116. Han D., Wang W., Gong J., Ma Y., Li Y. Controlled delivery of mesenchymal stem cells via biodegradable scaffolds for fracture healing. Nanomedicine. 2024;18:1–18. doi: 10.1080/17435889.2024.2439242.

117. Kumar B., Singh N., Kumar P. A review on sources, modification techniques, properties and potential applications of alginate-based modified polymers. Eur. Polym. J. 2024;16:113078. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2024.113078.

118. Beig B., Liaqat U., Niazi M.F., Douna I., Zahoor M., Niazi M.B. Current challenges and innovative developments in hydroxyapatite-based coatings on metallic materials for bone implantation: A review. Coatings. 2020;10:1249. doi: 10.3390/coatings10121249.

119. Dubey S., Mishra R., Roy P., Singh R.P. 3-D macro/microporous-nanofibrous bacterial cellulose scaffolds seeded with BMP-2 preconditioned mesenchymal stem cells exhibit remarkable potential for bone tissue engineering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021;167:934–946. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.049.

120. Deng H., Wang J., An R. Hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels: As an exosome delivery system in bone regeneration. Front. Pharmacol. 2023;14:1131001. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1131001.

121. Koohkan R., Hooshmand T., Mohebbi-Kalhori D., Tahriri M., Marefati M.T. Synthesis, characterization, and in vitro biological evaluation of copper-containing magnetic bioactive glasses for hyperthermia in bone defect treatment. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2018;4:1797–1811. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b01030.

122. Eslami H., Lisar H.A., Kashi T.S., Tahriri M., Ansari M., Rafiei T., Bastami F., Shahin-Shamsabadi A., Abbas F.M., Tayebi L. Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)(PLGA)/TiO2 nanotube bioactive composite as a novel scaffold for bone tissue engineering: In vitro and in vivo studies. Biologicals. 2018;53:51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2018.02.004.

123. Yang X., Wang Y., Zhou Y., Chen J., Wan Q. The application of polycaprolactone in three-dimensional printing scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Polymers. 2021;13:2754. doi: 10.3390/polym13162754.

124. Habibi P., Bagheri F., Tork N. Polyethylene glycol: Novel applications in tissue engineering and carriers of antimicrobial and anticancer agents. Nano Micro Biosyst. 2024;3:1–7.

125. Alavi M.S., Memarpour S., Pazhohan-Nezhad H., Salimi Asl A., Moghbeli M., Shadmanfar S., Saburi E. Applications of poly (lactic acid) in bone tissue engineering: A review article. Artif. Organs. 2023;47:1423–1430. doi: 10.1111/aor.14612.

126. Ramanathan S., Lin Y.C., Thirumurugan S., Hu C.C., Duann Y.F., Chung R.J. Poly (methyl methacrylate) in Orthopedics: Strategies, Challenges, and Prospects in Bone Tissue Engineering. Polymers. 2024;16:367. doi: 10.3390/polym16030367.

127. Annunziata M., Nastri L., Cecoro G., Guida L. The use of poly-d, l-lactic acid (PDLLA) devices for bone augmentation techniques: A systematic review. Molecules. 2017;22:2214. doi: 10.3390/molecules22122214.

128. Szczepańczyk P., Szlachta M., Złocista-Szewczyk N., Chłopek J., Pielichowska K. Recent developments in polyurethane-based materials for bone tissue engineering. Polymers. 2021;13:946. doi: 10.3390/polym13060946.