Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

3D-Printed Polyurethane Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: Techniques and Emerging Applications

  • Review
  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Regenerative Engineering and Translational Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The primary purpose of this review article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of polyurethane (PU)-based 3D-printed scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (BTE). It aims to highlight the unique properties of PU, such as its mechanical strength and biocompatibility, that make it suitable for scaffold fabrication. The review examines different 3D printing techniques, assessing their compatibility with PU and their impact on scaffold properties. Additionally, it explores the potential applications of PU-based scaffolds in BTE, including customizable implants and drug delivery. The article also addresses current market trends, challenges, and future research directions to facilitate the clinical translation of PU-based scaffolds.

Methods

The authors gathered information about PU from articles published up to 2024 and listed in PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, Google Scholar, and similar databases. The keywords used in our search included “Polyurethane,” “3D Printing,” “SLA,” “SLS,” “FDM,” “Scaffold,” and “Bone Tissue Engineering.”

Results

The review highlights PU as a promising material for 3D-printed scaffolds in BTE due to its excellent mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and flexibility. It critically examines 3D printing techniques like Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Inkjet Bioprinting, Stereolithography (SLA), and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), focusing on their impact on scaffold architecture. PU scaffolds demonstrate suitable mechanical strength, bioactivity, and degradation rates for load-bearing applications and tissue regeneration. The study also emphasizes PU’s potential in customizable implants and drug delivery systems while discussing commercial trends and future research needs to improve clinical translation.

Conclusion

PU-based 3D-printed scaffolds hold significant promise for BTE due to their excellent mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and versatility. Continued research to address current challenges will be crucial to advancing their clinical translation and optimizing their effectiveness in promoting bone regeneration.

Future Works

The processing parameters of PU-based 3D printing techniques will be optimized to enhance scaffold architecture and mechanical properties. Additionally, integrating bioactive materials and growth factors into the PU scaffolds could improve biocompatibility and promote cell adhesion and proliferation. Investigating these scaffolds’ long-term degradation behavior and mechanical performance in load-bearing applications is essential. Finally, advancing clinical translation through comprehensive preclinical studies and exploring regulatory pathways will be critical to bringing PU-based scaffolds to market for BTE.

Lay Summary

This review article focuses on using PU-based 3D-printed scaffolds for BTE. PU is a flexible and durable polymer known for its strength and compatibility with the human body. It is an excellent material for creating scaffolds that closely mimic natural bone structures. The article explores PU’s chemical properties, making it an excellent scaffold production choice. The various 3D printing techniques—such as FDM, Inkjet Bioprinting, SLA, and SLS—are examined for their ability to work with PU and how each method affects the design and functionality of the scaffolds. The discussion covers essential factors like mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and the rate at which PU scaffolds degrade over time. These are crucial for their effectiveness in supporting new tissue growth, especially in load-bearing applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from €37.37 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (India)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 4
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Data Availability

The data supporting this study's findings is included in this article.

References

  1. Furman D, Campisi J, Verdin E, Carrera-Bastos P, Targ S, Franceschi C, et al. Chronic inflammation in the etiology of disease across the life span. Nat Med. 2019;25:1822–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar P, Saini M, Dehiya BS, Sindhu A, Kumar V, Kumar R, et al. Comprehensive survey on nanobiomaterials for bone tissue engineering applications. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:2019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar P, Dehiya BS, Sindhu A. Bioceramics for hard tissue engineering applications: a review. Int J Appl Eng Res. 2018;13:2744–52.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar P, Kumar V, Kumar R, Kumar R, Pruncu CI. Fabrication and characterization of ZrO2 incorporated SiO2–CaO–P2O5 bioactive glass scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;109:103854.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arner JW, Santrock RD. A historical review of common bone graft materials in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Spec. 2014;7:143–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Steijvers E, Ghei A, Xia Z. Manufacturing artificial bone allografts: a perspective. Biomater Transl. 2022;3:65–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalsi S, Singh J, Sehgal SS, Sharma NK. Biomaterials for tissue engineered bone scaffolds: a review. Mater Today Proc. 2023;81:888–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Devillard CD, Marquette CA. Vascular tissue engineering: challenges and requirements for an ideal large scale blood vessel. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:721843.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Singh S, Kumar M, Doolaanea AA, Mandal UK. A recent review on 3D-printing: scope and challenges with special focus on pharmaceutical field. Curr Pharm Des. 2022;28:2488–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang Q, Zhou J, Zhi P, Liu L, Liu C, Fang A, et al. 3D printing method for bone tissue engineering scaffold. Med Nov Technol Devices. 2023;17:100205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ansari M. Bone tissue regeneration: biology, strategies and interface studies. Prog Biomater. 2019;8:223–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ren Y, Zhang C, Liu Y, Kong W, Yang X, Niu H, et al. Advances in 3D printing of highly bioadaptive bone tissue engineering scaffolds. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01129.

  13. Singh S, Kumar M, Choudhary D, Chopra S, Bhatia A. 3D printing technology in drug delivery: polymer properties and applications. J Dispers Sci Technol. 2023;1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2023.2289623.

  14. Ramezani Dana H, Ebrahimi F. Synthesis, properties, and applications of polylactic acid-based polymers. Polym Eng Sci. 2023;63:22–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Doolaanea A, Latif N, Singh S, Kumar M, Safa’at MF, Alfatama M, et al. A review on physicochemical properties of polymers used as filaments in 3D-printed tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2023;24:1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guimarães CF, Gasperini L, Marques AP, Reis RL. The stiffness of living tissues and its implications for tissue engineering. Nat Rev Mater. 2020;5:351–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cui M, Chai Z, Lu Y, Zhu J, Chen J. Developments of polyurethane in biomedical applications: a review. Resour Chem Mater. 2023;2:262–76.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Miri Z, Farè S, Ma Q, Haugen HJ. Updates on polyurethane and its multifunctional applications in biomedical engineering. Prog Biomed Eng. 2023;5:42001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Comuzzi L, Tumedei M, D’Arcangelo C, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. An in vitro analysis on polyurethane foam blocks of the insertion torque (IT) values, removal torque values (RTVs), and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values in tapered and cylindrical implants. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:9238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Burke A, Hasirci N. Polyurethanes in biomedical applications. Biomater from mol to eng tissue. 2004;83–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48584-8_7.

  21. Maurya AK, de Souza FM, Gupta RK. Polyurethane and its composites: synthesis to application. Polyurethanes Prep Prop Appl Vol 1 Fundam. American Chemical Society; 2023. p. 1.

  22. Das A, Mahanwar P. A brief discussion on advances in polyurethane applications. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res. 2020;3:93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  23. de Souza FM, Kahol PK, Gupta RK. Introduction to polyurethane chemistry. Polyurethane Chem Renew Polyols Isocyanates. American Chemical Society; 2021. p. 1.

  24. Kemona A, Piotrowska M. Polyurethane recycling and disposal: methods and prospects. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12:1752.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Souza FM, Sulaiman MR, Gupta RK. Materials and chemistry of polyurethanes. Mater Chem Flame-Retardant Polyurethanes Vol 1 A Fundam Approach. American Chemical Society; 2021. p. 1.

  26. Polyurethanes MSSE-SR in. Structure–property relations in polyurethanes. Szycher’s Handb Polyurethanes. CRC Press; 2012.

  27. Akindoyo JO, Beg MDH, Ghazali S, Islam MR, Jeyaratnam N, Yuvaraj AR. Polyurethane types, synthesis and applications – a review. RSC Adv. 2016;6:114453–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Li S, Liu Z, Hou L, Chen Y, Xu T. Effect of polyether/polyester polyol ratio on properties of waterborne two-component polyurethane coatings. Prog Org Coat. 2020;141:105545.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Petrović ZS, Ilavský M, Dušek K, Vidaković M, Javni I, Banjanin b. The effect of crosslinking on properties of polyurethane elastomers. J Appl Polym Sci. 1991;42:391–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li X-L, Guo X-F, Song J-L, Sun G-Y. Research progress on hydrolytic stability of polyester polyurethane dispersions. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1635:12109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Peyrton J, Avérous L. Structure-properties relationships of cellular materials from biobased polyurethane foams. Mater Sci Eng R Reports. 2021;145:100608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Riehle N, Athanasopulu K, Kutuzova L, Götz T, Kandelbauer A, Tovar GEM, et al. Influence of hard segment content and diisocyanate structure on the transparency and mechanical properties of poly(dimethylsiloxane)-based urea elastomers for biomedical applications. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ristić I, Cakić S, Vukić N, Teofilović V, Tanasić J, Pilić B. The influence of soft segment structure on the properties of polyurethanes. Polymers (Basel). 2023;15:3755.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. GhavamiNejad A, Ashammakhi N, Wu XY, Khademhosseini A. Crosslinking strategies for 3D bioprinting of polymeric hydrogels. Small. 2020;16:2002931.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shi J, Zheng T, Zhang Y, Guo B, Xu J. Reprocessable cross-linked polyurethane with dynamic and tunable phenol–carbamate network. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2020;8:1207–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chung Y-C, Kim JH, Park JE, Chun BC. Flexible crosslinking of polyurethane using grafted poly(dimethylsiloxane) with Epichlorohydrin and Bisphenol A end groups and its impact on the mechanical properties and low-temperature flexibility. J Elastomers Plast. 2021;54:555–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Müller SJ, Mirzahossein E, Iftekhar EN, Bächer C, Schrüfer S, Schubert DW, et al. Flow and hydrodynamic shear stress inside a printing needle during biofabrication. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0236371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bercea M. Rheology as a tool for fine-tuning the properties of printable bioinspired gels. Molecules. 2023;28:2766.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang J, Lv S, Zhao X, Ma S, Zhou F. Functional zwitterionic polyurethanes: state-of-the-art review. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2023;n/a:2300606.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wendels S, Avérous L. Biobased polyurethanes for biomedical applications. Bioact Mater. 2021;6:1083–106.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Allami T, Alamiery A, Nassir MH, Kadhum AH. Investigating physio-thermo-mechanical properties of polyurethane and thermoplastics nanocomposite in various applications. Polymers (Basel). 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13152467.

  42. Takahara A, Okkema AZ, Cooper SL, Coury AJ. Effect of surface hydrophilicity on ex vivo blood compatibility of segmented polyurethanes. Biomaterials. 1991;12:324–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Szczepańczyk P, Szlachta M, Złocista-Szewczyk N, Chłopek J, Pielichowska K. Recent developments in polyurethane-based materials for bone tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Marzec M, Kucińska-Lipka J, Kalaszczyńska I, Janik H. Development of polyurethanes for bone repair. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017;80:736–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Fernández-d’Arlas B, Alonso-Varona A, Palomares T, Corcuera MA, Eceiza A. Studies on the morphology, properties and biocompatibility of aliphatic diisocyanate-polycarbonate polyurethanes. Polym Degrad Stab. 2015;122:153–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Norouzi A, Nemati Lay E, Arabloo nareh A, Hosseinkhani A, Chapalaghi M. Functionalized nanodiamonds in polyurethane mixed matrix membranes for carbon dioxide separation. Results Mater. 2022;13:100243.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Maitra U, Prasad KE, Ramamurty U, Rao CNR. Mechanical properties of nanodiamond-reinforced polymer-matrix composites. Solid State Commun. 2009;149:1693–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Du J, Zuo Y, Lin L, Huang D, Niu L, Wei Y, et al. Effect of hydroxyapatite fillers on the mechanical properties and osteogenesis capacity of bio-based polyurethane composite scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;88:150–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ozimek J, Pielichowski K. Recent advances in polyurethane/POSS hybrids for biomedical applications. Molecules. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27010040.

  50. Zhang X, He Y, Huang P, Jiang G, Zhang M, Yu F, et al. A novel mineralized high strength hydrogel for enhancing cell adhesion and promoting skull bone regeneration in situ. Compos Part B Eng. 2020;197:108183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Huang L, Tan J, Li W, Zhou L, Liu Z, Luo B, et al. Functional polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane reinforced poly(lactic acid) nanocomposites for biomedical applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;90:604–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Złocista-Szewczyk N, Szatkowski P, Pielichowska K. Preparation and characteristics of polyurethane-based composites reinforced with bioactive ceramics. Eng Biomater. 2020;22–9. https://doi.org/10.34821/eng.biomat.154.2020.22-29.

  53. Yu T-Y, Tseng Y-K, Lin T-H, Wang T-C, Tseng Y-H, Chang Y-H, et al. Effect of cellulose compositions and fabrication methods on mechanical properties of polyurethane-cellulose composites. Carbohydr Polym. 2022;291:119549.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Janmohammadi M, Nazemi Z, Salehi AOM, Seyfoori A, John JV, Nourbakhsh MS, et al. Cellulose-based composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering and localized drug delivery. Bioact Mater. 2023;20:137–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Xu C, Hong Y. Rational design of biodegradable thermoplastic polyurethanes for tissue repair. Bioact Mater. 2022;15:250–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ng WS, Lee CS, Cheng S-F, Chuah CH, Wong SF. Biocompatible polyurethane scaffolds prepared from glycerol monostearate-derived polyester polyol. J Polym Environ. 2018;26:2881–900.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Vu V-P, Kim S-H, Mai V-D, Ra S, An S, Lee S-H. Bio-based conductive polyurethane composites derived from renewable castor oil with enhanced self-healing ability for flexible supercapacitors. J Mater Sci Technol. 2024;188:44–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Chakraborty I, Chatterjee K. Polymers and composites derived from castor oil as sustainable materials and degradable biomaterials: current status and emerging trends. Biomacromol. 2020;21:4639–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Król P, Uram Ł, Król B, Pielichowska K, Sochacka-Piętal M, Walczak M. Synthesis and property of polyurethane elastomer for biomedical applications based on nonaromatic isocyanates, polyesters, and ethylene glycol. Colloid Polym Sci. 2020;298:1077–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. da Silva GR, da Silva-Cunha A, Behar-Cohen F, Ayres E, Oréfice RL. Biodegradation of polyurethanes and nanocomposites to non-cytotoxic degradation products. Polym Degrad Stab. 2010;95:491–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ryszkowska JL, Auguścik M, Sheikh A, Boccaccini AR. Biodegradable polyurethane composite scaffolds containing Bioglass® for bone tissue engineering. Compos Sci Technol. 2010;70:1894–908.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Kucińska-Lipka J, Gubanska I, Korchynskyi O, Malysheva K, Kostrzewa M, Włodarczyk D, et al. The influence of calcium glycerophosphate (GPCa) modifier on physicochemical, mechanical, and biological performance of polyurethanes applicable as biomaterials for bone tissue scaffolds fabrication. Polymers (Basel). 2017;9:329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ng WS, Lee CS, Chuah CH, Cheng S-F. Preparation and modification of water-blown porous biodegradable polyurethane foams with palm oil-based polyester polyol. Ind Crops Prod. 2017;97:65–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Yeoh FH, Lee CS, Kang YB, Wong SF, Cheng SF, Ng WS. Production of biodegradable palm oil-based polyurethane as potential biomaterial for biomedical applications. Polymers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12081842.

  65. Sienkiewicz N, Członka S. Natural additives improving polyurethane antimicrobial activity. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14:2533.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen J, Garcia ES, Zimmerman SC. Intramolecularly cross-linked polymers: from structure to function with applications as artificial antibodies and artificial enzymes. Acc Chem Res. 2020;53:1244–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Islam MM, Shahruzzaman M, Biswas S, Nurus Sakib M, Rashid TU. Chitosan based bioactive materials in tissue engineering applications-a review. Bioact Mater. 2020;5:164–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Chiou B-S, Schoen PE. Effects of crosslinking on thermal and mechanical properties of polyurethanes. J Appl Polym Sci. 2002;83:212–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Nugroho WT, Dong Y, Pramanik A, Leng J, Ramakrishna S. Smart polyurethane composites for 3D or 4D printing: general-purpose use, sustainability and shape memory effect. Compos Part B Eng. 2021;223:109104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Salih A, Goswami T. Mechanical behavior of polyurethane insulation of CRT leads in cardiac implantable electronic devices: a comparative analysis of in vivo exposure and residual properties. Bioengineering. 2024;11:156.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Vakil AU, Petryk NM, Du C, Howes B, Stinfort D, Serinelli S, et al. In vitro and in vivo degradation correlations for polyurethane foams with tunable degradation rates. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2023;111:580–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Xu C, Huang Y, Wu J, Tang L, Hong Y. Triggerable degradation of polyurethanes for tissue engineering applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015;7:20377–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Iqbal N, Khan AS, Asif A, Yar M, Haycock JW, Rehman IU. Recent concepts in biodegradable polymers for tissue engineering paradigms: a critical review. Int Mater Rev. 2019;64:91–126.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Fernando S, McEnery M, Guelcher SA. Polyurethanes for bone tissue engineering. In: Cooper SL, Guan JBT-A in PB, editors. Adv Polyurethane Biomater. Elsevier; 2016. p. 481–501.

  75. Piticescu RM, Cursaru LM, Ciobota DN, Istrate S, Ulieru D. 3D bioprinting of hybrid materials for regenerative medicine: implementation in innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). JOM. 2019;71:662–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Chen T-C, Wong C-W, Hsu S. Three-dimensional printing of chitosan cryogel as injectable and shape recoverable scaffolds. Carbohydr Polym. 2022;285:119228.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Farzan A, Borandeh S, Zanjanizadeh Ezazi N, Lipponen S, Santos HA, Seppälä J. 3D scaffolding of fast photocurable polyurethane for soft tissue engineering by stereolithography: Influence of materials and geometry on growth of fibroblast cells. Eur Polym J. 2020;139:109988.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Rayna T, Striukova L. From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: how 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2016;102:214–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sultana N, Ali A, Waheed A, Aqil M. 3D Printing in pharmaceutical manufacturing: current status and future prospects. Mater Today Commun. 2024;38:107987.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Chia HN, Wu BM. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng. 2015;9:1–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Turnbull G, Clarke J, Picard F, Riches P, Jia L, Han F, et al. 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Bioact Mater. 2018;3:278–314.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Shahrubudin N, Lee TC, Ramlan R. An overview on 3D printing technology: technological, materials, and applications. Procedia Manuf. 2019;35:1286–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Top N, Şahin İ, Gökçe H, Gökçe H. Computer-aided design and additive manufacturing of bone scaffolds for tissue engineering: state of the art. J Mater Res. 2021;36:3725–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Nikolova MP, Chavali MS. Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D scaffolds: a review. Bioact Mater. 2019;4:271–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Winarso R, Anggoro PW, Ismail R, Jamari J, Bayuseno AP. Application of fused deposition modeling (FDM) on bone scaffold manufacturing process: a review. Heliyon. 2022;8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11701.

  86. Bahraminasab M. Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds. Biomed Eng Online. 2020;19:69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Zein I, Hutmacher DW, Tan KC, Teoh SH. Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials. 2002;23:1169–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. DiNoro JN, Paxton NC, Skewes J, Yue Z, Lewis PM, Thompson RG, et al. Laser sintering approaches for bone tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel). 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14122336.

  89. Shirazi SFS, Gharehkhani S, Mehrali M, Yarmand H, Metselaar HSC, Adib Kadri N, et al. A review on powder-based additive manufacturing for tissue engineering: selective laser sintering and inkjet 3D printing. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2015;16:33502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Kim K, Yeatts A, Dean D, Fisher JP. Stereolithographic bone scaffold design parameters: osteogenic differentiation and signal expression. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2010;16:523–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Shivalkar S, Singh S. Solid freeform techniques application in bone tissue engineering for scaffold fabrication. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017;14:187–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Zaszczyńska A, Moczulska-Heljak M, Gradys A, Sajkiewicz P. Advances in 3D printing for tissue engineering. Materials (Basel). 2021;14:3149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Barui S. 3D inkjet printing of biomaterials: principles and applications. Med Devices Sensors. 2021;4:e10143.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Zieliński PS, Gudeti PKR, Rikmanspoel T, Włodarczyk-Biegun MK. 3D printing of bio-instructive materials: toward directing the cell. Bioact Mater. 2023;19:292–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Mallikarjuna B, Bhargav P, Hiremath S, Jayachristiyan KG, Jayanth N. A review on the melt extrusion-based fused deposition modeling (FDM): background, materials, process parameters and military applications. Int J Interact Des Manuf. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01354-0.

  96. Rahmatabadi D, Soltanmohammadi K, Pahlavani M, Aberoumand M, Soleyman E, Ghasemi I, et al. Shape memory performance assessment of FDM 3D printed PLA-TPU composites by Box-Behnken response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2023;127:935–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Sandanamsamy L, Harun WSW, Ishak I, Romlay FRM, Kadirgama K, Ramasamy D, et al. A comprehensive review on fused deposition modelling of polylactic acid. Prog Addit Manuf. 2023;8:775–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Shanmugam V, Das O, Babu K, Marimuthu U, Veerasimman A, Johnson DJ, et al. Fatigue behaviour of FDM-3D printed polymers, polymeric composites and architected cellular materials. Int J Fatigue. 2021;143:106007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Jandyal A, Chaturvedi I, Wazir I, Raina A, Haq MIU. 3D printing–a review of processes, materials and applications in industry 4.0. Sustain Oper Comput. 2022;3:33–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Chocholata P, Kulda V, Babuska V. Fabrication of scaffolds for bone-tissue regeneration. Materials (Basel). 2019;12:568.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. An J, Teoh JEM, Suntornnond R, Chua CK. Design and 3D printing of scaffolds and tissues. Engineering. 2015;1:261–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Xu Y, Zhang F, Zhai W, Cheng S, Li J, Wang Y. Unraveling of advances in 3D-printed polymer-based bone scaffolds. Polymers (Basel). 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030566.

  103. Mazzanti V, Malagutti L, Mollica F. FDM 3D printing of polymers containing natural fillers: a review of their mechanical properties. Polymers (Basel). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11071094.

  104. Kumar P, Ebbens S, Zhao X. Inkjet printing of mammalian cells – Theory and applications. Bioprinting. 2021;23:e00157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Tamay DG, Dursun Usal T, Alagoz AS, Yucel D, Hasirci N, Hasirci V. 3D and 4D printing of polymers for tissue engineering applications. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00164.

  106. Yazdanpanah Z, Johnston JD, Cooper DML, Chen X. 3D bioprinted scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state-of-the-art and emerging technologies. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.824156.

  107. Chen XB, Fazel Anvari-Yazdi A, Duan X, Zimmerling A, Gharraei R, Sharma NK, et al. Biomaterials / bioinks and extrusion bioprinting. Bioact Mater. 2023;28:511–36.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Li H, Tan C, Li L. Review of 3D printable hydrogels and constructs. Mater Des. 2018;159:20–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Hölzl K, Lin S, Tytgat L, Van Vlierberghe S, Gu L, Ovsianikov A. Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication. 2016;8:32002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Ashammakhi N, Ahadian S, Xu C, Montazerian H, Ko H, Nasiri R, et al. Bioinks and bioprinting technologies to make heterogeneous and biomimetic tissue constructs. Mater Today Bio. 2019;1:100008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Roth EA, Xu T, Das M, Gregory C, Hickman JJ, Boland T. Inkjet printing for high-throughput cell patterning. Biomaterials. 2004;25:3707–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Mani MP, Sadia M, Jaganathan SK, Khudzari AZ, Supriyanto E, Saidin S, et al. A review on 3D printing in tissue engineering applications. J Polym Eng. 2022;42:243–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Gao G, Yonezawa T, Hubbell K, Dai G, Cui X. Inkjet-bioprinted acrylated peptides and PEG hydrogel with human mesenchymal stem cells promote robust bone and cartilage formation with minimal printhead clogging. Biotechnol J. 2015;10:1568–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Gao G, Schilling AF, Yonezawa T, Wang J, Dai G, Cui X. Bioactive nanoparticles stimulate bone tissue formation in bioprinted three-dimensional scaffold and human mesenchymal stem cells. Biotechnol J. 2014;9:1304–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Li N, Guo R, Zhang ZJ. Bioink formulations for bone tissue regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:1–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Bandyopadhyay A, Vahabzadeh S, Shivaram A, Bose S. Three-dimensional printing of biomaterials and soft materials. MRS Bull. 2015;40:1162–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Huang J, Qin Q, Wang J. A review of stereolithography: processes and systems. Processes. 2020;8:1138.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Sun F, Wang T, Yang Y. Hydroxyapatite composite scaffold for bone regeneration via rapid prototyping technique: a review. Rapid Prototyp J. 2022;28:585–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Lakkala P, Munnangi SR, Bandari S, Repka M. Additive manufacturing technologies with emphasis on stereolithography 3D printing in pharmaceutical and medical applications: a review. Int J Pharm X. 2023;5:100159.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Liang J, Liu P, Yang X, Liu L, Zhang Y, Wang Q, et al. Biomaterial-based scaffolds in promotion of cartilage regeneration: Recent advances and emerging applications. J Orthop Transl. 2023;41:54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Kesireddy V, Kasper FK. Approaches for building bioactive elements into synthetic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B. 2016;4:6773–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Abbasi N, Hamlet S, Love RM, Nguyen N-T. Porous scaffolds for bone regeneration. J Sci Adv Mater Devices. 2020;5:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Rouf S, Malik A, Singh N, Raina A, Naveed N, Siddiqui MIH, et al. Additive manufacturing technologies: industrial and medical applications. Sustain Oper Comput. 2022;3:258–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Saleh Alghamdi S, John S, Roy Choudhury N, Dutta NK. Additive manufacturing of polymer materials: progress, promise and challenges. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Lupone F, Padovano E, Casamento F, Badini C. Process phenomena and material properties in selective laser sintering of polymers: a review. Materials (Basel). 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010183.

  126. Ataee A, Li Y, Brandt M, Wen C. Ultrahigh-strength titanium gyroid scaffolds manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM) for bone implant applications. Acta Mater. 2018;158:354–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Wauthle R, Vrancken B, Beynaerts B, Jorissen K, Schrooten J, Kruth J-P, et al. Effects of build orientation and heat treatment on the microstructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V lattice structures. Addit Manuf. 2015;5:77–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Weißmann V, Bader R, Hansmann H, Laufer N. Influence of the structural orientation on the mechanical properties of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V open-porous scaffolds. Mater Des. 2016;95:188–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Tan KH, Chua CK, Leong KF, Cheah CM, Cheang P, Abu Bakar MS, et al. Scaffold development using selective laser sintering of polyetheretherketone–hydroxyapatite biocomposite blends. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3115–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Balasankar A, Anbazhakan K, Arul V, Mutharaian VN, Sriram G, Aruchamy K, et al. Recent advances in the production of pharmaceuticals using selective laser sintering. Biomimetics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8040330.

  131. Williams JM, Adewunmi A, Schek RM, Flanagan CL, Krebsbach PH, Feinberg SE, et al. Bone tissue engineering using polycaprolactone scaffolds fabricated via selective laser sintering. Biomaterials. 2005;26:4817–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Du Y, Liu H, Yang Q, Wang S, Wang J, Ma J, et al. Selective laser sintering scaffold with hierarchical architecture and gradient composition for osteochondral repair in rabbits. Biomaterials. 2017;137:37–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Wu J, Yang R, Zheng J, Pan L, Liu X. Fabrication and improvement of PCL/alginate/PAAm scaffold via selective laser sintering for tissue engineering. Micro Nano Lett. 2019;14:852–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Mi H-Y, Palumbo S, Jing X, Turng L-S, Li W-J, Peng X-F. Thermoplastic polyurethane/hydroxyapatite electrospun scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: effects of polymer properties and particle size. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2014;102:1434–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Xu W, Jambhulkar S, Zhu Y, Ravichandran D, Kakarla M, Vernon B, et al. 3D printing for polymer/particle-based processing: a review. Compos Part B Eng. 2021;223:109102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Chen Q, Mangadlao JD, Wallat J, De Leon A, Pokorski JK, Advincula RC. 3D printing biocompatible polyurethane/poly(lactic acid)/graphene oxide nanocomposites: anisotropic properties. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9:4015–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Hsieh C-T, Hsu S. Double-network polyurethane-gelatin hydrogel with tunable modulus for high-resolution 3D bioprinting. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11:32746–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Hafeman AE, Li B, Yoshii T, Zienkiewicz K, Davidson JM, Guelcher SA. Injectable biodegradable polyurethane scaffolds with release of platelet-derived growth factor for tissue repair and regeneration. Pharm Res. 2008;25:2387–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Bahrami S, Solouk A, Mirzadeh H, Seifalian AM. Electroconductive polyurethane/graphene nanocomposite for biomedical applications. Compos Part B Eng. 2019;168:421–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Nowicki MA, Castro NJ, Plesniak MW, Zhang LG. 3D printing of novel osteochondral scaffolds with graded microstructure. Nanotechnology. 2016;27:414001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Asefnejad A, Khorasani MT, Behnamghader A, Farsadzadeh B, Bonakdar S. Manufacturing of biodegradable polyurethane scaffolds based on polycaprolactone using a phase separation method: physical properties and in vitro assay. Int J Nanomed. 2011;6:2375–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Luo Y-L, Zhang C-H, Xu F, Chen Y-S. Novel THTPBA/PEG-derived highly branched polyurethane scaffolds with improved mechanical property and biocompatibility. Polym Adv Technol. 2012;23:551–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Rechichi A, Ciardelli G, D’Acunto M, Vozzi G, Giusti P. Degradable block polyurethanes from nontoxic building blocks as scaffold materials to support cell growth and proliferation. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2008;84A:847–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Joo Y-S, Cha J-R, Gong M-S. Biodegradable shape-memory polymers using polycaprolactone and isosorbide based polyurethane blends. Mater Sci Eng C. 2018;91:426–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Luo K, Wang L, Chen X, Zeng X, Zhou S, Zhang P, et al. Biomimetic polyurethane 3D scaffolds based on polytetrahydrofuran glycol and polyethylene glycol for soft tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112631.

  146. Li X, Zou Q, Wei J, Li W. The degradation regulation of 3D printed scaffolds for promotion of osteogenesis and in vivo tracking. Compos Part B Eng. 2021;222:109084.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Luan H, Zhu Y, Wang G. Synthesis, self-assembly, biodegradation and drug delivery of polyurethane copolymers from bio-based poly(1,3-propylene succinate). React Funct Polym. 2019;141:9–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Roohani-Esfahani S-I, Newman P, Zreiqat H. Design and fabrication of 3D printed scaffolds with a mechanical strength comparable to cortical bone to repair large bone defects. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19468.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Tetteh G, Khan AS, Delaine-Smith RM, Reilly GC, Rehman IU. Electrospun polyurethane/hydroxyapatite bioactive scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: the role of solvent and hydroxyapatite particles. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;39:95–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Cooke ME, Ramirez-GarciaLuna JL, Rangel-Berridi K, Park H, Nazhat SN, Weber MH, et al. 3D printed polyurethane scaffolds for the repair of bone defects. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:557215.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Lin W, Lan W, Wu Y, Zhao D, Wang Y, He X, et al. Aligned 3D porous polyurethane scaffolds for biological anisotropic tissue regeneration. Regen Biomater. 2020;7:19–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Loh QL, Choong C. Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2013;19:485–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Luo K, Wang L, Wang Y, Zhou S, Zhang P, Li J. Porous 3D hydroxyapatite/polyurethane composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering and its in vitro degradation behavior. Ferroelectrics. 2020;566:104–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. Serrano-Aroca Á, Cano-Vicent A, Sabater i Serra R, El-Tanani M, Aljabali A, Tambuwala MM, et al. Scaffolds in the microbial resistant era: fabrication, materials, properties and tissue engineering applications. Mater Today Bio. 2022;16:100412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Rahman MM. Polyurethane/Zinc Oxide (PU/ZnO) Composite—synthesis, protective property and application. Polymers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12071535.

  156. Dubey A, Vahabi H, Kumaravel V. Antimicrobial and biodegradable 3D printed scaffolds for orthopedic infections. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2023;9:4020–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Wang W, Wang C. 3 - Polyurethane for biomedical applications: a review of recent developments. In: Davim JPBT-TD and M of MD, editor. Woodhead Publ Rev Mech Eng Ser. Woodhead Publishing; 2012. p. 115–51.

  158. Zafar K, Zia KM, Alzhrani RM, Almalki AH, Alshehri S. Biocompatibility and hemolytic activity studies of synthesized alginate-based polyurethanes. Polymers (Basel). 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14102091.

  159. Rayung M, Ghani NA, Hasanudin N. A review on vegetable oil-based non isocyanate polyurethane: towards a greener and sustainable production route. RSC Adv. 2024;14:9273–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Frisch E, Clavier L, Belhamdi A, Vrana NE, Lavalle P, Frisch B, et al. Preclinical in vitro evaluation of implantable materials: conventional approaches, new models and future directions. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Qin Y. 14 - Biocompatibility testing for medical textile products. In: Qin YBT-MTM, editor. Woodhead Publ Ser Text. Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 191–201.

  162. Al-Azzam N, Alazzam A. Micropatterning of cells via adjusting surface wettability using plasma treatment and graphene oxide deposition. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0269914.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Arima Y, Iwata H. Effect of wettability and surface functional groups on protein adsorption and cell adhesion using well-defined mixed self-assembled monolayers. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3074–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Jacobs T, Morent R, De Geyter N, Dubruel P, Leys C. Plasma surface modification of biomedical polymers: influence on cell-material interaction. Plasma Chem Plasma Process. 2012;32:1039–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. De S, Sharma R, Trigwell S, Laska B, Ali N, Mazumder MK, et al. Plasma treatment of polyurethane coating for improving endothelial cell growth and adhesion. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2005;16:973–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Deng X, Chen X, Geng F, Tang X, Li Z, Zhang J, et al. Precision 3D printed meniscus scaffolds to facilitate hMSCs proliferation and chondrogenic differentiation for tissue regeneration. J Nanobiotechnol. 2021;19:400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. Aksoy EA, Hasirci V, Hasirci N, Motta A, Fedel M, Migliaresi C. Plasma protein adsorption and platelet adhesion on heparin-immobilized polyurethane films. J Bioact Compat Polym. 2008;23:505–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  168. Ren Z, Chen G, Wei Z, Sang L, Qi M. Hemocompatibility evaluation of polyurethane film with surface-grafted poly(ethylene glycol) and carboxymethyl-chitosan. J Appl Polym Sci. 2013;127:308–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Bhattacharjee A, Savargaonkar AV, Tahir M, Sionkowska A, Popat KC. Surface modification strategies for improved hemocompatibility of polymeric materials: a comprehensive review. RSC Adv. 2024;14:7440–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Głowińska E, Smorawska J, Niesiobędzka J, Datta J. Structure versus hydrolytic and thermal stability of bio-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers composed of hard and soft building blocks with high content of green carbon. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2024;149:2147–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Shah Z, Gulzar M, Hasan F, Shah AA. Degradation of polyester polyurethane by an indigenously developed consortium of Pseudomonas and Bacillus species isolated from soil. Polym Degrad Stab. 2016;134:349–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  172. Skrobot J, Ignaczak W, El Fray M. Hydrolytic and enzymatic degradation of flexible polymer networks comprising fatty acid derivatives. Polym Degrad Stab. 2015;120:368–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  173. Boffito M, Di Meglio F, Mozetic P, Giannitelli SM, Carmagnola I, Castaldo C, et al. Surface functionalization of polyurethane scaffolds mimicking the myocardial microenvironment to support cardiac primitive cells. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0199896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  174. Reddy MS, Ponnamma D, Choudhary R, Sadasivuni KK. A comparative review of natural and synthetic biopolymer composite scaffolds. Polymers (Basel). 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13071105.

  175. Flores-Jiménez MS, Garcia-Gonzalez A, Fuentes-Aguilar RQ. Review on porous scaffolds generation process: a tissue engineering approach. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2023;6:1–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Xie F, Zhang T, Bryant P, Kurusingal V, Colwell JM, Laycock B. Degradation and stabilization of polyurethane elastomers. Prog Polym Sci. 2019;90:211–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  177. Gewert B, Plassmann MM, MacLeod M. Pathways for degradation of plastic polymers floating in the marine environment. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2015;17:1513–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Mahajan N, Gupta P. New insights into the microbial degradation of polyurethanes. RSC Adv. 2015;5:41839–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  179. Bonferoni MC, Caramella C, Catenacci L, Conti B, Dorati R, Ferrari F, et al. Biomaterials for soft tissue repair and regeneration: a focus on Italian research in the field. Pharmaceutics. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13091341.

  180. Eglin D, Mortisen D, Alini M. Degradation of synthetic polymeric scaffolds for bone and cartilage tissue repairs. Soft Matter. 2009;5:938–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  181. Gen L, Jiong-Jiong L, Li-Mei L, Jia-Xing J, Yu-Bao L, Ji-Dong L. Preparation of calcium phosphate/polyurethane composite porous scaffolds for bone repair by in situ self-foaming method. J Inorg Mater. 2016;31:719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Carayon I, Szarlej P, Łapiński M, Kucińska-Lipka J. Polyurethane composite scaffolds modified with the mixture of gelatin and hydroxyapatite characterized by improved calcium deposition. Polymers (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12020410.

  183. Li M, Chen J, Shi M, Zhang H, Ma PX, Guo B. Electroactive anti-oxidant polyurethane elastomers with shape memory property as non-adherent wound dressing to enhance wound healing. Chem Eng J. 2019;375:121999.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  184. Pyun DG, Choi HJ, Yoon HS, Thambi T, Lee DS. Polyurethane foam containing rhEGF as a dressing material for healing diabetic wounds: synthesis, characterization, in vitro and in vivo studies. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces. 2015;135:699–706.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Sen S, Basak P, Sinha BP, Maurye P, Jaiswal KK, Das P, et al. Anti-inflammatory effect of epidermal growth factor conjugated silk fibroin immobilized polyurethane ameliorates diabetic burn wound healing. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;143:1009–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Hung K-C, Tseng C-S, Dai L-G, Hsu S. Water-based polyurethane 3D printed scaffolds with controlled release function for customized cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2016;83:156–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Meskinfam M, Bertoldi S, Albanese N, Cerri A, Tanzi MC, Imani R, et al. Polyurethane foam/nano hydroxyapatite composite as a suitable scaffold for bone tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C. 2018;82:130–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  188. Asefnejad A, Behnamghader A, Khorasani MT, Farsadzadeh B. Polyurethane/fluor-hydroxyapatite nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Part I: morphological, physical, and mechanical characterization. Int J Nanomed. 2011;93–100. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S13385.

  189. Pereira IHL, Ayres E, Patrício PS, Góes AM, Gomide VS, Junior EP, et al. Photopolymerizable and injectable polyurethanes for biomedical applications: synthesis and biocompatibility. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:3056–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Ganji Y, Kasra M, Kordestani SS, Hariri MB. Synthesis and characterization of gold nanotube/nanowire–polyurethane composite based on castor oil and polyethylene glycol. Mater Sci Eng C. 2014;42:341–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  191. Mobarak MH, Islam MA, Hossain N, Al Mahmud MZ, Rayhan MT, Nishi NJ, et al. Recent advances of additive manufacturing in implant fabrication – a review. Appl Surf Sci Adv. 2023;18:100462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Do A-V, Khorsand B, Geary SM, Salem AK. 3D printing of scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4:1742–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Agarwal R, García AJ. Biomaterial strategies for engineering implants for enhanced osseointegration and bone repair. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015;94:53–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Jóźwiak AB, Kielty CM, Black RA. Surface functionalization of polyurethane for the immobilization of bioactive moieties on tissue scaffolds. J Mater Chem. 2008;18:2240–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Ressler A, Žužić A, Ivanišević I, Kamboj N, Ivanković H. Ionic substituted hydroxyapatite for bone regeneration applications: a review. Open Ceram. 2021;6:100122.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  196. Ye J, Liu N, Li Z, Liu L, Zheng M, Wen X, et al. Injectable, hierarchically degraded bioactive scaffold for bone regeneration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2023;15:11458–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Wei S, Ma J-X, Xu L, Gu X-S, Ma X-L. Biodegradable materials for bone defect repair. Mil Med Res. 2020;7:54.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  198. Du B, Yin H, Chen Y, Lin W, Wang Y, Zhao D, et al. A waterborne polyurethane 3D scaffold containing PLGA with a controllable degradation rate and an anti-inflammatory effect for potential applications in neural tissue repair. J Mater Chem B. 2020;8:4434–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Kumar P, Dehiya BS, Sindhu A. Synthesis and characterization of nHA-PEG and nBG-PEG scaffolds for hard tissue engineering applications. Ceram Int. 2019;45:8370–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  200. Hollister SJ, Maddox RD, Taboas JM. Optimal design and fabrication of scaffolds to mimic tissue properties and satisfy biological constraints. Biomaterials. 2002;23:4095–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Zhang S, Shi X, Miao Z, Zhang H, Zhao X, Wang K, et al. 3D-printed polyurethane tissue-engineering scaffold with hierarchical microcellular foam structure and antibacterial properties. Adv Eng Mater. 2022;24:2101134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  202. Prasadh S, Wong RCW. Unraveling the mechanical strength of biomaterials used as a bone scaffold in oral and maxillofacial defects. Oral Sci Int. 2018;15:48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  203. Puppi D, Migone C, Grassi L, Pirosa A, Maisetta G, Batoni G, et al. Integrated three-dimensional fiber/hydrogel biphasic scaffolds for periodontal bone tissue engineering. Polym Int. 2016;65:631–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  204. Reyes AP, Martínez Torres A, del Pilar Carreón Castro M, Rodríguez Talavera JR, Muñoz SV, Aguilar VMV, et al. Novel poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-g-vinyl alcohol) polyurethane scaffold for tissue engineering. Sci Rep. 2016;6:31140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  205. Shie M-Y, Chang W-C, Wei L-J, Huang Y-H, Chen C-H, Shih C-T, et al. 3D printing of cytocompatible water-based light-cured polyurethane with hyaluronic acid for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Materials (Basel). 2017;10:136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Qiu C, Li F, Wang L, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Tang Q, et al. The preparation and properties of polyurethane foams reinforced with bamboo fiber sources in China. Mater Res Express. 2021;8:45501.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  207. Zhang XB, Chen JY, Gan ZH, Qiu LM, Zhang KH, Yang RP, et al. Experimental study of moisture uptake of polyurethane foam subjected to a heat sink below 30K. Cryogenics (Guildf). 2014;59:1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  208. Burgaz E, Kendirlioglu C. Thermomechanical behavior and thermal stability of polyurethane rigid nanocomposite foams containing binary nanoparticle mixtures. Polym Test. 2019;77:105930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  209. Zhang Y, Li C, Zhang W, Deng J, Nie Y, Du X, et al. 3D-printed NIR-responsive shape memory polyurethane/magnesium scaffolds with tight-contact for robust bone regeneration. Bioact Mater. 2022;16:218–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Yu J, Xia H, Teramoto A, Ni Q-Q. The effect of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles on mechanical behavior and biological performance of porous shape memory polyurethane scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2018;106:244–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  211. Martorana A, Fiorica C, Palumbo FS, Federico S, Giammona G, Pitarresi G. Redox responsive 3D-printed nanocomposite polyurethane-urea scaffold for doxorubicin local delivery. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2023;88:104890.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  212. Zielińska A, Karczewski J, Eder P, Kolanowski T, Szalata M, Wielgus K, et al. Scaffolds for drug delivery and tissue engineering: the role of genetics. J Control Release. 2023;359:207–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. Mohammed AA, Algahtani MS, Ahmad MZ, Ahmad J, Kotta S. 3D Printing in medicine: technology overview and drug delivery applications. Ann 3D Print Med. 2021;4:100037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  214. Wienen D, Gries T, Cooper SL, Heath DE. An overview of polyurethane biomaterials and their use in drug delivery. J Control Release. 2023;363:376–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Liu H, Zhang L, Shi P, Zou Q, Zuo Y, Li Y. Hydroxyapatite/polyurethane scaffold incorporated with drug-loaded ethyl cellulose microspheres for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2010;95B:36–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  216. Park D, Lee SJ, Choi DK, Park J-W. Therapeutic agent-loaded fibrous scaffolds for biomedical applications. Pharmaceutics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15051522.

  217. Rambhia KJ, Ma PX. Controlled drug release for tissue engineering. J Control Release. 2015;219:119–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  218. Miszuk J, Liang Z, Hu J, Sanyour H, Hong Z, Fong H, et al. Elastic mineralized 3D electrospun PCL nanofibrous scaffold for drug release and bone tissue engineering. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2021;4:3639–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  219. Li B, Brown KV, Wenke JC, Guelcher SA. Sustained release of vancomycin from polyurethane scaffolds inhibits infection of bone wounds in a rat femoral segmental defect model. J Control Release. 2010;145:221–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Rothe R, Hauser S, Neuber C, Laube M, Schulze S, Rammelt S, et al. Adjuvant drug-assisted bone healing: advances and challenges in drug delivery approaches. Pharmaceutics. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12050428.

  221. Wassif RK, Elkayal M, Shamma RN, Elkheshen SA. Recent advances in the local antibiotics delivery systems for management of osteomyelitis. Drug Deliv. 2021;28:2392–414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  222. Pountos I, Georgouli T, Bird H, Kontakis G, Giannoudis PV. The effect of antibiotics on bone healing: current evidence. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2011;10:935–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. Contessi Negrini N, Ricci C, Bongiorni F, Trombi L, D’Alessandro D, Danti S, et al. An osteosarcoma model by 3D printed polyurethane scaffold and in vitro generated bone extracellular matrix. Cancers (Basel). 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14082003.

  224. Angeloni V, Contessi N, De Marco C, Bertoldi S, Tanzi MC, Daidone MG, et al. Polyurethane foam scaffold as in vitro model for breast cancer bone metastasis. Acta Biomater. 2017;63:306–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  225. Sobczak M, Kędra K. Biomedical polyurethanes for anti-cancer drug delivery systems: a brief, comprehensive review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158181.

  226. Tiboni M, Campana R, Frangipani E, Casettari L. 3D printed clotrimazole intravaginal ring for the treatment of recurrent vaginal candidiasis. Int J Pharm. 2021;596:120290.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Santra A, Prakash R, Maity S, Nilawar S, Chatterjee K, Maiti P. Core–shell structure of photopolymer-grafted polyurethane as a controlled drug delivery vehicle for biomedical application. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2024;16:17193–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Pedersen DD, Kim S, Wagner WR. Biodegradable polyurethane scaffolds in regenerative medicine: clinical translation review. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2022;110:1460–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  229. He M, Hou Y, Zhu C, He M, Jiang Y, Feng G, et al. 3D-printing biodegradable PU/PAAM/Gel hydrogel scaffold with high flexibility and self-adaptibility to irregular defects for nonload-bearing bone regeneration. Bioconjug Chem. 2021;32:1915–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. Yang Y, Chu L, Yang S, Zhang H, Qin L, Guillaume O, et al. Dual-functional 3D-printed composite scaffold for inhibiting bacterial infection and promoting bone regeneration in infected bone defect models. Acta Biomater. 2018;79:265–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. Chinnasami H, Dey MK, Devireddy R. Three-dimensional scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Bioengineering. 2023;10:759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  232. Singh S, Kumar Paswan K, Kumar A, Gupta V, Sonker M, Ashhar Khan M, et al. Recent advancements in polyurethane-based tissue engineering. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2023;6:327–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  233. Dukle A, Murugan D, Nathanael A, Rangasamy L, Oh T-H. Can 3D-printed bioactive glasses be the future of bone tissue engineering? Polymers (Basel). 2022;14:1627.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. Abdul Samat A, Abdul Hamid ZA, Jaafar M, Ong CC, Yahaya BH. Investigation of the in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility of a three-dimensional printed thermoplastic polyurethane/polylactic acid blend for the development of tracheal scaffolds. Bioengineering. 2023;10:394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  235. Abyzova E, Dogadina E, Rodriguez RD, Petrov I, Kolesnikova Y, Zhou M, et al. Beyond tissue replacement: the emerging role of smart implants in healthcare. Mater Today Bio. 2023;22:100784.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  236. Ko Y, Kim NR, Park S, Park JB. Use of Artelon® Cosmetic in soft tissue augmentation in dentistry. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2011;3:33–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  237. Geary C, Birkinshaw C, Jones E. Characterisation of bionate polycarbonate polyurethanes for orthopaedic applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19:3355–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  238. Hill RG. 10 - Biomedical polymers. In: Hench LL, Jones Artificial Organs and Tissue Engineering JRBT-B, editors. Woodhead Publ Ser Biomater. Woodhead Publishing; 2005. p. 97–106.

  239. Padsalgikar AD. 4 - Biological properties of polyurethanes. In: Padsalgikar ADBT-A of P in MD, editor. Plast Des Libr. William Andrew Publishing; 2022. p. 83–114.

  240. Tajvar S, Hadjizadeh A, Samandari SS. Scaffold degradation in bone tissue engineering: an overview. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad. 2023;180:105599.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  241. Zhang Z, Feng Y, Wang L, Liu D, Qin C, Shi Y. A review of preparation methods of porous skin tissue engineering scaffolds. Mater Today Commun. 2022;32:104109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  242. Miri Z, Haugen HJ, Loca D, Rossi F, Perale G, Moghanian A, et al. Review on the strategies to improve the mechanical strength of highly porous bone bioceramic scaffolds. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2024;44:23–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  243. Wang Y-F, Barrera CM, Dauer EA, Gu W, Andreopoulos F, Huang C-YC. Systematic characterization of porosity and mass transport and mechanical properties of porous polyurethane scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;65:657–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  244. Janik H, Marzec M. A review: fabrication of porous polyurethane scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;48:586–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  245. Chuang T-W, Masters KS. Regulation of polyurethane hemocompatibility and endothelialization by tethered hyaluronic acid oligosaccharides. Biomaterials. 2009;30:5341–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  246. Basterretxea A, Haga Y, Sanchez-Sanchez A, Isik M, Irusta L, Tanaka M, et al. Biocompatibility and hemocompatibility evaluation of polyether urethanes synthesized using DBU organocatalyst. Eur Polym J. 2016;84:750–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received to conduct this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Banasthali Vidyapith, Radha Kishnpura, 304022, Rajasthan, India

    Kumari Shanno

  2. Department of Chemistry, Jyoti Nivas College Autonomous, Koramangala, 560 095, Bangalore, India

    Preeti Mangala

  3. Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies, Pallavaram, 600117, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Thukani Sathanantham Shanmugarajan

  4. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, RIMT University, Gobindgarh, 147301, Punjab, India

    Bhupinder Bhyan

  5. Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, K. K. Wagh College of Pharmacy, Nashik, 422006, Maharashtra, India

    Manoj Gangadhar Shinde

  6. Bihar College of Pharmacy, Patna, 801503, Bihar, India

    Manoj Gangadhar Shinde

  7. KYDSCT’s College of Pharmacy, Sakegaon, 425201, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

    Bhuvaneshwari Yogesh Rane

  8. Lloyd Institute of Management and Technology, Greater Noida, 201306, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Syed Salman Ali

  9. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University, Bathinda, 151001, India

    Mohit Kumar & Pawan Kumar

Authors
  1. Kumari Shanno
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Preeti Mangala
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thukani Sathanantham Shanmugarajan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bhupinder Bhyan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manoj Gangadhar Shinde
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bhuvaneshwari Yogesh Rane
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Syed Salman Ali
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohit Kumar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Pawan Kumar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study, as well as the drafting and revising of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mohit Kumar or Pawan Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

On the behalf of all authors, the corresponding authors declared that no animal or human was involved in this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shanno, K., Mangala, P., Shanmugarajan, T.S. et al. 3D-Printed Polyurethane Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: Techniques and Emerging Applications. Regen. Eng. Transl. Med. 11, 651–673 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40883-024-00381-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40883-024-00381-x

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Syed Salman Ali View author profile
  2. Pawan Kumar View author profile