Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Orthopedic Reviews logoLink to Orthopedic Reviews
. 2025 Mar 31;17:132223. doi: 10.52965/001c.132223

From Bone To Blood Flow: Tissue Engineering In Orthopedics – A Narrative Review

Bshara Sleem 1, Rakan Nassereldine 2, Victor Ghazi 1, Karine Eid 1, Maya Hemdanieh 3, Mohamad Nassereddine 4,✉
PMCID: PMC11964394  PMID: 40176925

Abstract

Musculoskeletal injuries and degenerative conditions necessitate advanced regenerative solutions. Tissue engineering has emerged as a pivotal field in orthopedic care, particularly in vascularized bone and cartilage regeneration. This narrative review examines the latest advancements in vascular tissue engineering, including scaffold design, cell-based techniques, and growth factor delivery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, focusing on innovations and challenges in the field. Vascularized bone grafts (VBGs) outperform non-vascularized counterparts in promoting healing and integration. Advances in scaffold materials, such as smart scaffolds and hybrid biomaterials, enhance osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Cellular therapies, utilizing mesenchymal stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells, synergistically improve vascularization and bone regeneration. Growth factors like VEGF and bone morphogenic protein (BMP-2), integrated with innovative delivery systems, enable sustained angiogenic stimulation and scaffold integration. While significant strides have been made, challenges persist in achieving full vascular integration and replicating native tissue architecture. Innovations in scaffold technology and vascular surgery techniques hold promise for transforming orthopedic tissue engineering and improving patient outcomes.

Keywords: vascularized bone grafts, growth factor, tissue engineering

I. Introduction

Musculoskeletal, bone, and cartilage injuries are increasing due to demographic aging and the growing focus on exercise, underscoring the need for advanced treatment and rehabilitation strategies to enhance patient care and quality of life.1 The emergence of regenerative medicine has paved the way for successfully recreating healthy tissues.2

Regenerative medicine, a rapidly advancing field, encompasses tissue engineering as a critical component that seeks to restore damaged tissues and improve overall functionality. Recent innovations in orthopedic tissue engineering focus on regenerating bone, cartilage, and musculoskeletal tissues using engineered constructs to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.3 The trajectory of orthopedic surgery has shifted with the advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques that reduce surgical and postoperative trauma.4

Orthopedic tissue regeneration relies on four essential components: cells, signals, scaffolds, and a suitable mechanical environment. Strategies to combine these components are intensively researched to ensure clinically effective tissue regeneration.3

Grafts can be developed from various stem cell types, such as mesenchymal, embryonic, and pluripotent stem cells, each evaluated for their potential in tissue regeneration. Scaffolds, which can be derived from natural materials, synthetic substances, or devitalized extracellular matrices, offer benefits and limitations depending on their source.5

Given the highly grafted nature of bone, vascularization is crucial to ensure successful tissue integration and long-term graft viability.6 Vascular tissue engineering aims to create functional vascular networks within engineered tissues, facilitating their growth and integration into the host. Integrating vascular surgery techniques into orthopedic tissue engineering holds promise for addressing complex cases like non-union fractures and avascular necrosis.7,8

This review examines the advancements, challenges, and future directions of vascular tissue engineering in orthopedics, focusing on innovations in scaffold design, biomaterials, progenitor cell grafts, angiogenic factor delivery, and the application of vascularized grafts for bone, cartilage, and joint repair.

II. Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to explore vascularized bone grafts and tissue engineering approaches in orthopedics. The search included articles published in peer-reviewed journals, accessed through PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Search terms included “vascularized bone grafts,” “orthopedic tissue engineering,” “scaffold design,” “vascular tissue engineering,” “angiogenesis,” and “growth factor delivery.” Studies were selected based on relevance to bone and cartilage regeneration, with an emphasis on recent advancements in scaffold materials, cell-based therapies, and vascularization techniques.

III. The Role of Vascularization Strategies in Enhancing Bone and Cartilage Healing

Importance of vascularization

Non-union fractures remain a frequent complication in orthopedic surgery despite significant research advancements. Adequate vascularization plays a key role in ensuring successful bone regeneration by providing the callus tissue with the essential oxygen, nutrients, and growth factors.9 Similarly, the successful treatment of large segmental bone defects is also hindered by factors like infection, tumor resection, and soft tissue damage. Thus, effective healing relies heavily on restoring a large volume of bone, making vascularization strategies crucial for supporting bone regeneration and remodeling.10

Vascularized bone grafts

Vascularized bone grafts (VBGs) have proved superior to non-vascularized bone grafts (NVBGs) because VBGs contain living osteocytes and active blood flow, allowing for direct healing and better preservation of biomechanical properties and mineral content, thereby reducing bone resorption and enhancing healing potential.11 Unlike NVBGs, which rely on creeping substitution through a dead bone matrix, VBGs can effectively remodel and integrate into the recipient site even in avascular environments, preventing complications like non-unions, infections, and graft failure.12,13

Table 1 represents a detailed comparison of various vascularized bone grafts, outlining their locations, indications, vascular contributions, potential complications, and additional clinical considerations.11,14–21 Figure 1 represents an overview of scaffold-based platforms for stem cell and growth factor delivery in bone tissue engineering.

Table 1. Comparison of vascularized bone grafts for locations, indications and clinical considerations.

Graft Location Bone Type and Description Vascular Contribution Indications Morbidity/ Complications
Fibula Tubular bone, segment length 26-30 cm Peroneal artery Large segmental bone defects, mandibular reconstruction (esp. double-barrel technique for anterior defects), femoral head necrosis Donor-site morbidity (e.g., peroneal nerve injury, lower extremity blood flow)
Medial Femoral Condyle Cortico-cancellous, cortical surfaces, and potential osteo-cartilaginous structure Descending genicular artery Small to moderate bone defects, scaphoid non-union, avascular necrosis of carpal bones, extremity defects Temporary knee pain common post-surgery
Distal Radius
(Pedicled) 		Cortical bone, limited volume, vascularized pedicled graft for small reconstructions Radial artery Small bone defects, particularly in carpal bones (e.g., scaphoid non-union, avascular necrosis of scaphoid) Limited bone tissue, risk of donor site fracture, scarring
Iliac Crest Cortico-cancellous, large concave shape Deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) Structural and contour defects in mandible, maxillofacial, and upper/lower extremity reconstructions Risk of contour deformity, infection, chronic pain
Scapula Multilamellar structure, cortical and cancellous Angular branch of thoracodorsal artery (TDa) Moderate to large bone defects, complex composite tissue defects, especially in elderly patients with vascular disease Shoulder and arm dysfunction, seroma
Rib (Costal) Membranous bone with dual blood supply Posterior intercostal artery and periosteal supply from serratus anterior (via thoracodorsal artery) Lower/upper extremity (e.g., humerus, clavicle, carpal non-union) and maxillofacial defects, jawbone substitute for mandible Infection, chronic pain
Clavicle Cortico-cancellous, 3-7 cm Supraclavicular artery, superior thyroid artery Shoulder and chest wall defects Reduced shoulder strength, donor-site morbidity
Metatarsal (second) Cortico-cancellous Descending genicular artery Small defect reconstruction in the foot Pain, discomfort
Open in a new tab

Figure 1. Overview of scaffold types in bone tissue engineering.

A diagram of a scaffold Description automatically generated

Open in a new tab

Vascular surgery techniques for limb salvage

In addition to the use of vascularized bone grafts for reconstructing non-union fractures and large bone defects, vascular surgery techniques play an equally critical role in limb salvage procedures. In cases of severe trauma or compromised blood flow, techniques such as arterial bypass and vein grafting become essential for restoring circulation and ensuring the viability of both soft tissue and bone. Lower extremity bypass surgery involves using an autogenous vein, like the ipsilateral greater saphenous vein (GSV), to bypass arterial obstructions, identified through preoperative vascular imaging, from a proximal to a distal site.22 This procedure is especially crucial for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia and distal occlusive disease, where autologous veins are preferred over prosthetic grafts for better long-term outcomes.23 The small saphenous vein (SSV) can also be used in patients when harvesting the GSV is difficult.24

Advancing beyond current approaches, the integration of novel scaffold designs, improved growth factor delivery systems, and cell-based techniques are driving the future of vascular tissue engineering in orthopedics.

IV. Advances in Vascular Tissue Engineering for Bone Regeneration

Although VBGs are commonly used for bone repair, drawbacks such as the limited availability of autologous bone grafts and issues like donor site morbidity, along with the potential for rejection in allogeneic grafts, can increase the risk of implant failure.25 Thus, engineered vascular tissues have emerged as a viable alternative, with an emphasis on incorporating pro-angiogenic factors like vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) into scaffolds to promote the blood vessel formation within the engineered constructs, facilitating osteogenesis and tissue integration.25 Additionally, scaffold designs that mimic the natural bone micro-environment can significantly improve the vascularization process and lead to faster bone regeneration.26

a. Cellular Techniques

Cellular techniques are pivotal in creating functional vascular networks for bone regeneration in orthopedic applications. Endothelial cells (ECs) initiate angiogenesis by forming the framework for vascular networks, ensuring nutrient delivery, oxygen supply, and waste removal critical for bone healing.27 Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) enhance vascularization by differentiating into multiple cell types and releasing pro-angiogenic factors like VEGF, supporting endothelial proliferation and maturation.28 Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) provide scalability and potential for patient-specific therapy, crucial for long-term vascular integration.29 Advances in nano-polypeptide hydrogels and 3D printing improve scaffold designs, facilitating stem cell differentiation and angiogenesis.30

The integration of cell-based approaches in orthopedic tissue engineering represents a promising avenue for developing vascularized bone constructs. Across multiple studies, the synergistic use of MSCs and ECs has emerged as a fundamental strategy to promote both angiogenesis and osteogenesis, enhancing bone healing in large defects.29,31–33

The inclusion of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) adds versatility, allowing for differentiation into multiple cell types and enabling patient-specific therapies, which are critical for achieving better integration and functional outcomes in engineered bone tissues.34,35 Replicating natural developmental processes, such as endochondral ossification, further strengthens the formation of mature bone structures, underscoring the importance of physiological pathways in engineering vascularized bone.32,36

Innovations in scaffold-free techniques, like temperature-responsive cell sheets, allow for the autonomous formation of functional tissue analogues.33 These methods not only enhance scalability but also improve vascular integration, addressing critical challenges in treating complex orthopedic defects.33 Further innovations in cell-based approaches include automated systems that streamline the production of multi-layered tissue constructs, enhancing scalability and reproducibility. These systems utilize robotic platforms to assemble cell sheets, enabling efficient production of pre-vascularized structures suitable for large, complex orthopedic defects.33,37 However, given their recent advent, studies are yet to yield decisive data pertaining to the advantages of using such systems.

b. Growth factor delivery

Effective growth factor delivery is essential for promoting angiogenesis and bone regeneration in orthopedic tissue engineering. VEGF drives blood vessel formation, while factors like basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and angiopoietins stabilize and mature vascular networks, crucial for integrating engineered constructs into bone tissues.38 Strategies such as incorporating VEGF into biodegradable scaffolds provide sustained angiogenic stimulation during scaffold degradation, fostering vascular growth and bone healing.39 Combining VEGF with bFGF enhances endothelial cell proliferation and migration, accelerating early vessel formation.40,41 Nanoparticle encapsulation of VEGF and PDGF enables controlled release, stabilizing vascular networks within bone defects.42

Hydrogels, with their hydrophilic properties, deliver VEGF and angiopoietin-1 locally and efficiently, ensuring mature vascular networks for enhanced osteogenesis.43 Gene delivery techniques further enable sustained VEGF production, supporting long-term angiogenesis in large bone defects, particularly when combined with bFGF or PDGF for vascular stabilization.44,45

Electrospun fibers and microspheres integrated into scaffolds offer sequential release of VEGF, bFGF, and PDGF, promoting vascular density and maturity essential for orthopedic repair.46,47 These approaches ensure targeted angiogenesis, creating vascularized environments critical for effective bone regeneration.

Recent studies have explored various applications of factors like BMPs and PDGF in bone tissue engineering, focusing on effective delivery methods and combinatory approaches to enhance outcomes.48 For instance, PDGF-BB loaded onto tricalcium phosphate (TCP) particles is noted for promoting cell recruitment and revascularization, with applications in fractures and joint fusions.49,50 In clinical trials, it demonstrated comparable effectiveness to autografts, with over 66% fusion rates observed at 24 weeks postoperatively.49

FGF2 and BMP-2, combined with VEGF on silica-coated nanohydroxyapatite and gelatin scaffolds, were shown to stimulate vascularization and bone regeneration in calvarial defects, with varied release rates across growth factors.51 For BMP-2, polyelectrolyte film coatings on hollow poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) tubes allowed tunable release, facilitating rapid bone formation in femoral defects.52 A similar focus on BMP-2 and TGF-beta1 was seen in silk fibroin-based scaffolds, which promoted mesenchymal and osteoblast proliferation, enhancing osseointegration.53

The combination of BMP-2 and FGF-2 on gelatin nanofibers stimulated osteogenic gene expression, while PDGF on poly-lactic acid (PLLA) nanofibers promoted vascularized bone regeneration in mouse calvarial defects.54–56 Finally, VEGF and BMP-2 incorporated into microspheres with chitosan hydrogels achieved sustained release, leading to bone repair and callus remodeling in rabbit mandibular defects over 12 weeks.56 Table 2 represents a summary of key growth factors utilized in bone tissue engineering, highlighting their sources, biological roles, mechanisms of action, and primary functions when integrated into scaffold-based applications.57–62

Table 2. Growth factors utilized in bone tissue engineering through direct application or scaffold delivery.

Growth Factor Primary Source Key Biological Roles Mechanism of Action Main Functions
Fibroblast Growth Factor Mesenchymal, Osteoblast, Chondrocyte, Inflammatory Cells, Endothelial Promotes angiogenesis and tissue growth Angiogenesis, proliferation, osteogenic differentiation Encourages osteoblast proliferation; potent in wound healing and tissue repair
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Platelets, Osteoblast, Chondrocyte Supports angiogenesis and chemotactic signaling Angiogenesis Key in endothelial cell proliferation and survival, supplying nutrients through new blood vessels
Bone Morphogenetic Protein Mesenchymal, Osteoblast, Endothelial, Chondrocyte Drives bone formation, chondrogenic and osteogenic Bone induction Stimulates MSC migration and differentiation into osteoblasts, promoting bone formation without activating osteoclasts
Insulin-Like Growth Factor Osteoblast, Chondrocyte, Hepatocyte, Endothelial Anabolic effects on bone matrix synthesis Osteogenic stimulation Enhances osteoblast proliferation, bone matrix production, and stimulates osteoclasts
Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Platelets, Osteoblast, Inflammatory Cells, Endothelial Facilitates cell proliferation and tissue repair Cell proliferation, vascularization Central to wound healing and bone repair by promoting cell growth and angiogenesis
Transforming Growth Factor- β Platelets, Osteoblast, Chondrocyte, Inflammatory Cells, Fibroblast, Endothelial Osteoinductive, modulates immune responses Differentiation of chondrogenic and osteogenic pathways Stimulates bone growth by enhancing osteoprogenitor cells, ECM synthesis, and controlling osteoclast activity
Hepatocyte Growth Factor Fibroblast, Endothelial Cells Stimulates cell motility and proliferation Mitogenic and morphogenic signaling Promotes angiogenesis and tissue regeneration, often aiding in liver and wound repair processes
Epidermal Growth Factor Platelets, Salivary Glands Enhances epithelial and fibroblast growth Cell proliferation, epithelialization Accelerates wound healing and skin regeneration, important for epithelial cell growth and repair
Open in a new tab

c. Scaffold-based approaches

Scaffold-based techniques are central to vascular tissue engineering, designed to replicate the extracellular matrix (ECM) and support cell growth, differentiation, and vessel formation.63 These scaffolds use a variety of biomaterials—natural, synthetic, or a combination of both—tailored to mimic the structural and functional properties of native tissues.

Natural polymers such as collagen, gelatin, and fibrin are biocompatible and degrade into non-toxic by-products, promoting endothelial cell proliferation, ECM synthesis, and osteoblast adhesion and integration.64 In contrast, synthetic options like polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), and polyglycolic acid (PGA) provide superior control over mechanical properties, degradation rates, and resistance to physiological stresses,65,66 making them ideal for load-bearing orthopedic applications. Hybrid scaffolds, combining natural and synthetic materials, enhance osteoconductivity while maintaining structural integrity, enabling vessel maturation, bone formation, and defect healing.67,68

Advanced fabrication techniques, including 3D printing and electrospinning, allow precise control over scaffold porosity, pore size, and distribution.66,67 These features are critical for nutrient diffusion, capillary network formation, and cellular infiltration, directly supporting vascular and bone regeneration.69 Furthermore, modifications to scaffold surface roughness (0.2–2 µm) and charge properties optimize osteoblast activity while preventing bacterial adhesion, reducing the risk of infection in orthopedic implants.70,71

Smart Scaffolds represent a significant innovation in orthopedic tissue engineering, enabling scaffolds to sense and respond to external and internal stimuli.72 These include exogenous triggers, such as light or mechanical forces, and endogenous factors, like inflammation or bacterial activity, which can activate localized drug delivery or adaptive scaffold deployment.72 Such dynamic systems align with the functional demands of bone repair and regeneration, making smart scaffolds highly effective for targeted therapeutic outcomes.

The impact of a scaffold on native cells is a key factor in material selection. Scaffolds can be osteoconductive, allowing bone growth (like calcium sulfates), or osteoinductive, actively stimulating bone formation in defects that would not heal on their own (like demineralized bone matrix).73 Recent advancements in scaffold design for orthopedics focus on enhancing vascularization, bone regeneration, and infection prevention.74 Biomaterials like modified collagen, elastin-like polymers, and bioactive ceramics improve cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation while 3D-printed scaffolds allow precise control of porosity, promoting nutrient exchange and capillary growth.75,76 Figure 2 highlights the key factors and technologies in scaffold design for bone regeneration.

Figure 2. Overview of scaffold design for bone tissue engineering in terms of biological properties, material properties, and manufacturing techniques.

A diagram of a scaffold Description automatically generated

Open in a new tab

V. Tissue Engineering Challenges in Orthopedics

Despite current advancements in vascular tissue engineering, there remain unique limitations in generating vascular tissue that retains biological functionality, particularly in orthopedics. Vascularization of load-bearing tissues such as bone and cartilage require full graft integration on multiple hierarchical levels which proves to be challenging due to graft necrosis, limited diffusion of nutrients, and lack of integration with host issue.77 Bone tissue is composed of extracellular matrix signaling factors and bone cells which function in the formation and remodeling of natural bone tissue, and any graft intended to repair and regenerate bone must contain osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic properties.78 Vasculature repair in orthopedic tissues requires large perfusable blood vessel grafts at the injury site, then microvascular beds are needed as bone tissue faces a diffusion limit of 100–300 µm.78,79 To obtain functionality of grafted large blood vessels, specially designed biomaterials must be used to mimic the structural compositions of the different vascular layers.80 Some major limitations include recreating the distribution of cells within the three layers of vascular tissues in their natural arrangements. Moreover, reproducing a biocompatible surface that contains anti-thrombogenic properties remains a challenge.81 The gold standard for bone repair is comprised of autologous grafts which improve vascularization; however, the autograft supply is limited and can cause pain at the donor site.78 Sourcing decellularized xenogenic tissues for grafts has been used, which can avoid some complications of autologous grafts; however, severe immune responses to the graft may arise.82 Recent advances include the development of porous bioactive glass-ceramic scaffolds which enhance nutrient flow, yet the challenge of vascularization remains present.83 Another proposed alternative is using soft materials such as hydrogels for matrices as they can sustain cell viability for long periods of time; however, they face difficulty in integrating within the host tissue as their structure is easy to disrupt.57,84

Moreover, innervation has become a new focus in the development of vascularized tissue-engineered bone. Restoring sensory innervation and suppressing sympathetic nerve activation have demonstrated the ability to enhance the osteogenic properties of functional scaffolds.85

Despite the myriad advancements in the field of reconstructive surgery, one chief hurdle that remains to be overcome is the intrinsic properties of cartilage in being avascular – as well as aneural and alymphatic.86 However, recent studies have manifested the ability to vascularize tissue-engineered cartilage in animal models, which may pave the way for important clinical implications.87,88

Overall, vascularization in tissue engineering faces challenges such as incomplete vascular integration, limited diffusion of nutrients, long-term viability, difficulty in replicating native vascular architectures as well as obstacles in immune response and the mechanical stability of scaffolds.

VI. Conclusion

Orthopedic tissue engineering, especially in the realm of vascularized bone and cartilage regeneration, holds immense potential for addressing complex musculoskeletal injuries and degenerative conditions. Significant advancements in scaffold design, cell-based therapies, and growth factor delivery have demonstrated promise in promoting vascularization, essential for successful tissue integration and long-term graft viability. However, formidable challenges remain, particularly in achieving full vascular integration and replicating the hierarchical structure of native bone and cartilage. Innovations such as smart scaffolds, hybrid biomaterials, and gene delivery systems are paving the way toward more effective therapeutic options. Future research should prioritize overcoming the intrinsic limitations in scaffold vascularization and optimizing graft mechanical stability to improve clinical outcomes. The integration of vascular and orthopedic engineering techniques may ultimately establish new standards of care, enhancing patient recovery and quality of life.

Authors’ Contributions

BS, VG, KE, and MH contributed towards the concept of the study, the literature review, data extraction, and writing the different sections of the manuscript. BS worked on Figure 1 and table 2. VG worked on table 1. MH participated in data extraction, writing the manuscript, its rigorous revision several times, and coordinated the flow of the work. MN is the corresponding author. He made substantial contributions to the concept of the study and followed up the work to ensure that it was original and complied with the research ethics and guidelines of this journal. MN also contributed to the development of the manuscript. All authors are accountable for all the contributions and integrity of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical review was not required because the study is a review of literature.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements

The illustrations in figure 1 and figure 2 were created using BioRender (BioRender.com).

Funding Statement

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. Advanced Engineering Technology in Orthopedic Research. Cheng R., Wang H., Cheng C.-K. 2024Bioengineering. 11(9):925. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11090925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Regenerative engineering: a review of recent advances and future directions. Esdaille C. J., Washington K. S., Laurencin C. T. May;2021 Regen Med. 16(5):495–512. doi: 10.2217/rme-2021-0016. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2021-0016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bone tissue engineering techniques, advances, and scaffolds for treatment of bone defects. Alonzo M., Primo F. A., Kumar S. A., Mudloff J. A., Dominguez E., Fregoso G., Ortiz N., Weiss W. M., Joddar B. 2021Current opinion in biomedical engineering. 17:100248. doi: 10.1016/j.cobme.2020.100248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Current advancements in therapeutic approaches in orthopedic surgery: a review of recent trends. Liang W., Zhou C., Bai J., Zhang H., Jiang B., Wang J., Fu L., Long H., Huang X., Zhao J., Zhu H. Feb 9;2024 Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. :12. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1328997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1328997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Inorganic Nanomaterials in Tissue Engineering. Bianchi E., Vigani B., Viseras C., Ferrari F., Rossi S., Sandri G. 2022Pharmaceutics. 14(6):1127. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Facilitated vascularization and enhanced bone regeneration by manipulation hierarchical pore structure of scaffolds. Liu Y., Yang S., Cao L., Zhang X., Wang J., Liu C. May;2020 Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 110:110622. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.110622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. A short discourse on vascular tissue engineering. Chang W. G., Niklason L. E. Mar 27;2017 npj Regenerative Medicine. 2(1):7. doi: 10.1038/s41536-017-0011-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-017-0011-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mitigating challenges and expanding the future of vascular tissue engineering—are we there yet? Opinion. Shakeel A., Corridon P. R. Jan 4;2023 Frontiers in Physiology. :13. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1079421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.1079421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. The vascularization paradox of non-union formation. Menger M. M., Laschke M. W., Nussler A. K., Menger M. D., Histing T. Aug;2022 Angiogenesis. 25(3):279–290. doi: 10.1007/s10456-022-09832-x. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10456-022-09832-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Scaffold Guided Bone Regeneration for the Treatment of Large Segmental Defects in Long Bones. Schulze F., Lang A., Schoon J., Wassilew G. I., Reichert J. 2023Biomedicines. 11(2):325. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11020325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Vascularized Bone Grafts in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Review of Options and Indications. Archual A. J., Bishop A. T., Shin A. Y. 2022JAAOS - Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 30(2):60–69. doi: 10.5435/jaaos-d-20-01200. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-20-01200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Comparison between Vascular and Non-Vascular Bone Grafting in Scaphoid Nonunion: A Systematic Review. Testa G., Lucenti L., D’Amato S., Sorrentino M., Cosentino P., Vescio A., Pavone V. 2022Journal of Clinical Medicine. 11(12):3402. doi: 10.3390/jcm11123402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vascularized fibular grafts for the treatment of long bone defects: pros and cons. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Feltri P., Solaro L., Errani C., Schiavon G., Candrian C., Filardo G. Jan;2023 Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 143(1):29–48. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03962-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03962-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Vascularized bone grafts in spinal reconstruction: An updated comprehensive review. Abdulwadood I., Gomez D. A., Martinez C., Bohl M., Ropper A. E., Winocour S., Reece E. M. Sep 1;2024 Orthoplastic Surgery. 17:7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.orthop.2024.08.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthop.2024.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Holnthoner W., Banfi A., Kirkpatrick J., Redl H. Vascularization for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Springer; [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mandibular reconstruction: meta-analysis of iliac-versus fibula-free flaps. Lonie S., Herle P., Paddle A., Pradhan N., Birch T., Shayan R. 2016ANZ journal of surgery. 86(5):337–342. doi: 10.1111/ans.13274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Navigation-guided fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction: A proof of concept study. Pietruski P., Majak M., Światek-Najwer E., Żuk M., Popek M., Mazurek M., Świecka M., Jaworowski J. 2019Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 72(4):572–580. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Medial femoral condyle vascularized bone grafts for scaphoid nonunions. Jones Jr D., Shin A. 2010Chirurgie de la main. 29:S93–S103. doi: 10.1016/j.main.2010.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review. Wang W., Yeung K.W.K. Dec;2017 Bioact Mater. 2(4):224–247. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vascularized bone grafts for the treatment of carpal bone pathology. Derby B. M., Murray P. M., Shin A. Y., Bueno R. A., Mathoulin C. L., Ade T., Neumeister M. W. Mar;2013 Hand (N Y) 8(1):27–40. doi: 10.1007/s11552-012-9479-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-012-9479-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. The use of pedicled vascularized bone grafts in the treatment of scaphoid nonunion: clinical results, graft options and indications. Karaismailoglu B., Fatih Guven M., Erenler M., Botanlioglu H. Jan;2020 EFORT Open Rev. 5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190021. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bypass surgery for lower extremity limb salvage: vein bypass. El-Sayed H. F. 2012Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 8(4):37–42. doi: 10.14797/mdcj-8-4-37. https://doi.org/10.14797/mdcj-8-4-37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. In situ lesser saphenous vein bypass through a posterior approach: an underestimated approach for limb salvage. Rocha H., Antunes I., Rego D., Veiga C., Mendes D., Veterano C., Castro J., Pinelo A., Almeida H., Vaz C. 2021Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular. 17(3):274–277. [Google Scholar]
  24. The Small Saphenous Vein: An Underestimated Source for Autologous Distal Vein Bypass. Nierlich P., Metzger P., Enzmann F.K., Aspalter M., Dabernig W., Hitzl W., Linni K., Hölzenbein T. Oct 1;2019 European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 58(4):556–563. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.01.023. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Effect of donor variation on osteogenesis and vasculogenesis in hydrogel cocultures. Pennings I., van Dijk L. A., van Huuksloot J., Fledderus J. O., Schepers K., Braat A. K., Hsiao E. C., Barruet E., Morales B. M., Verhaar M. C., Rosenberg A. J. W. P., Gawlitta D. 2019Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 13(3):433–445. doi: 10.1002/term.2807. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Research progress of vascularization strategies of tissue-engineered bone. Review. Lv N., Zhou Z., Hou M., Hong L., Li H., Qian Z., Gao X., Liu M. Jan 19;2024 Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. :11. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1291969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1291969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Vascularization strategies for tissue engineering. Lovett M., Lee K., Edwards A., Kaplan D.L. Sep;2009 Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 15(3):353–70. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2009.0085. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2009.0085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Proangiogenic Features of Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Therapeutic Applications. Tao H., Han Z., Han Z.C., Li Z. 2016Stem Cells Int. 2016:1314709. doi: 10.1155/2016/1314709. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1314709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. The combination of stem cells and tissue engineering: an advanced strategy for blood vessels regeneration and vascular disease treatment. Wang Y., Yin P., Bian G.-L., Huang H.-Y., Shen H., Yang J.-J., Yang Z.-Y., Shen Z.-Y. Sep 15;2017 Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 8(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s13287-017-0642-y. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-017-0642-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Current Biomedical Applications of 3D-Printed Hydrogels. Barcena A. J. R., Dhal K., Patel P., Ravi P., Kundu S., Tappa K. Dec 21;2023 Gels. 10(1) doi: 10.3390/gels10010008. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels10010008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Examining the Characteristics and Applications of Mesenchymal, Induced Pluripotent, and Embryonic Stem Cells for Tissue Engineering Approaches across the Germ Layers. Priester C., MacDonald A., Dhar M., Bow A. Oct 26;2020 Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 13(11) doi: 10.3390/ph13110344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph13110344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Coupling osteogenesis and vasculogenesis in engineered orthopedic tissues. Schott N. G., Friend N. E., Stegemann J. P. 2021Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews. 27(3):199–214. doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2020.0132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Scaffold-free cell-based tissue engineering therapies: advances, shortfalls and forecast. De Pieri A., Rochev Y., Zeugolis D. I. 2021NPJ Regenerative Medicine. 6(1):18. doi: 10.1038/s41536-021-00133-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stem cell-based tissue engineering approaches for musculoskeletal regeneration. Brown P. T., Handorf A. M., Jeon W. B., Li W. J. 2013Curr Pharm Des. 19(19):3429–45. doi: 10.2174/13816128113199990350. https://doi.org/10.2174/13816128113199990350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Versatility of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs) for Improving the Knowledge on Musculoskeletal Diseases. Sanjurjo-Rodríguez C., Castro-Viñuelas R., Piñeiro-Ramil M., Rodríguez-Fernández S., Fuentes-Boquete I., Blanco F. J., Díaz-Prado S. Aug 25;2020 Int J Mol Sci. 21(17) doi: 10.3390/ijms21176124. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21176124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Endochondral ossification for enhancing bone regeneration: converging native extracellular matrix biomaterials and developmental engineering in vivo. Dennis S.C., Berkland C.J., Bonewald L.F., Detamore M.S. Jun;2015 Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 21(3):247–66. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2014.0419. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2014.0419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. 3D bioprinting and its innovative approach for biomedical applications. Tripathi S., Mandal S. S., Bauri S., Maiti P. Feb;2023 MedComm (2020) 4(1):e194. doi: 10.1002/mco2.194. https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. The Role of Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) Signaling in Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Farooq M., Khan A.W., Kim M.S., Choi S. Nov 19;2021 Cells. 10(11) doi: 10.3390/cells10113242. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sustained Release of VEGF to Promote Angiogenesis and Osteointegration of Three-Dimensional Printed Biomimetic Titanium Alloy Implants. Li Y., Liu Y., Bai H., Li R., Shang J., Zhu Z., Zhu Z., Zhu C., Che Z., Wang J., Liu H., Huang L. 2021Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 9:757767. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.757767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.757767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Angiogenic synergistic effect of basic fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor in an in vitro quantitative microcarrier-based three-dimensional fibrin angiogenesis system. Sun X. T., Ding Y. T., Yan X. G., Wu L. Y., Li Q., Cheng N., Qiu Y. D., Zhang M. Y. Sep 1;2004 World J Gastroenterol. 10(17):2524–8. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v10.i17.2524. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v10.i17.2524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Synergistic Effect of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor on Angiogenesis In Vivo. Asahara T., Bauters C., Zheng L. P., Takeshita S., Bunting S., Ferrara N., Symes J. F., Isner J. M. Nov 1;1995 Circulation. 92(9):365–371. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.92.9.365. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.92.9.365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Europium-doped mesoporous silica nanosphere as an immune-modulating osteogenesis/angiogenesis agent. Shi M., Xia L., Chen Z., Lv F., Zhu H., Wei F., Han S., Chang J., Xiao Y., Wu C. Nov;2017 Biomaterials. 144:176–187. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.08.027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.08.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Advancements in the Use of Hydrogels for Regenerative Medicine: Properties and Biomedical Applications. Revete A., Aparicio A., Cisterna B. A., Revete J., Luis L., Ibarra E., Segura González E. A., Molino J., Reginensi D. 2022Int J Biomater. 2022:3606765. doi: 10.1155/2022/3606765. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3606765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Innovations in gene and growth factor delivery systems for diabetic wound healing. Laiva A. L., O'Brien F. J., Keogh M. B. Jan;2018 J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 12(1):e296–e312. doi: 10.1002/term.2443. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) delivery approaches in regenerative medicine. Beheshtizadeh N., Gharibshahian M., Bayati M., Maleki R., Strachan H., Doughty S., Tayebi L. Oct 1;2023 Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 166:115301. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Electrospun Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: A Review. Flores-Rojas G. G., Gómez-Lazaro B., López-Saucedo F., Vera-Graziano R., Bucio E., Mendizábal E. 2023Macromol. 3(3):524–553. doi: 10.3390/macromol3030031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Electrospun Nanofibers for Improved Angiogenesis: Promises for Tissue Engineering Applications. Nazarnezhad S., Baino F., Kim H.W., Webster T.J., Kargozar S. Aug 17;2020 Nanomaterials (Basel) 10(8) doi: 10.3390/nano10081609. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10081609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Advances in growth factor delivery for bone tissue engineering. Oliveira É. R., Nie L., Podstawczyk D., Allahbakhsh A., Ratnayake J., Brasil D. L., Shavandi A. 2021International journal of molecular sciences. 22(2):903. doi: 10.3390/ijms22020903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. The Efficacy of Platelet-Derived Growth Factor as a Bone-Stimulating Agent. Krell E. S., DiGiovanni C. W. Dec;2016 Foot Ankle Clin. 21(4):763–770. doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2016.07.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2016.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. The Importance of Sufficient Graft Material in Achieving Foot or Ankle Fusion. DiGiovanni C. W., Lin S. S., Daniels T. R., Glazebrook M., Evangelista P., Donahue R., Beasley W., Baumhauer J. F. Aug 3;2016 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 98(15):1260–7. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.15.00879. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.15.00879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Dual release of growth factor from nanocomposite fibrous scaffold promotes vascularisation and bone regeneration in rat critical sized calvarial defect. Kuttappan S., Mathew D., Jo J. I., Tanaka R., Menon D., Ishimoto T., Nakano T., Nair S. V., Nair M. B., Tabata Y. Sep 15;2018 Acta Biomater. 78:36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.07.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Surface delivery of tunable doses of BMP-2 from an adaptable polymeric scaffold induces volumetric bone regeneration. Bouyer M., Guillot R., Lavaud J., Plettinx C., Olivier C., Curry V., Boutonnat J., Coll J. L., Peyrin F., Josserand V., Bettega G., Picart C. Oct;2016 Biomaterials. 104:168–81. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Dual growth factor loaded nonmulberry silk fibroin/carbon nanofiber composite 3D scaffolds for in vitro and in vivo bone regeneration. Naskar D., Ghosh A.K., Mandal M., Das P., Nandi S.K., Kundu S.C. 2017Biomaterials. 136:67–85. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Surface functionalization of dual growth factor on hydroxyapatite-coated nanofibers for bone tissue engineering. Udomluck N., Lee H., Hong S., Lee S.-H., Park H. 2020Applied Surface Science. 520:146311. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.146311. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Human adipose-derived stem cell spheroids incorporating platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and bio-minerals for vascularized bone tissue engineering. Lee J., Lee S., Ahmad T., Madhurakkat Perikamana S.K., Lee J., Kim E.M., Shin H. Oct;2020 Biomaterials. 255:120192. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Preparation and biological properties of silk fibroin/nano-hydroxyapatite/graphene oxide scaffolds with an oriented channel-like structure. Wang L., Fang M., Xia Y., Hou J., Nan X., Zhao B., Wang X. 2020RSC Advances. 10(17):10118–10128. doi: 10.1039/C9RA09710D. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA09710D [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering: Addressing Key Design Needs Toward Clinical Translation. Xu F., Dawson C., Lamb M., Mueller E., Stefanek E., Akbari M., Hoare T. 2022Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 10:849831. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.849831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.849831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ducheyne P. Comprehensive biomaterials. Vol. 1. Elsevier; [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. The roles of vascular endothelial growth factor in bone repair and regeneration. Hu K., Olsen B. R. 2016Bone. 91:30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2016.06.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Dual delivery of platelet-derived growth factor and bone morphogenetic factor-6 on titanium surface to enhance the early period of implant osseointegration. Keceli H. G., Bayram C., Celik E., Ercan N., Demirbilek M., Nohutcu R. M. 2020Journal of Periodontal Research. 55(5):694–704. doi: 10.1111/jre.12756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Hepatocyte growth factor improves bone regeneration via the bone morphogenetic protein-2-mediated NF-κB signaling pathway. Zhen R., Yang J., Wang Y., Li Y., Chen B., Song Y., Ma G., Yang B. Apr;2018 Mol Med Rep. 17(4):6045–6053. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2018.8559. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2018.8559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) transfection of human bone marrow stromal cells in bone tissue engineering. Wallmichrath J., Stark G. B., Kneser U., Andree C., Voigt M., Horch R. E., Schaefer D. J. Aug;2009 J Cell Mol Med. 13(8b):2593–2601. doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00600.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00600.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Biological materials for tissue-engineered vascular grafts: Overview of recent advancements. Di Francesco D., Pigliafreddo A., Casarella S., Di Nunno L., Mantovani D., Boccafoschi F. 2023Biomolecules. 13(9):1389. doi: 10.3390/biom13091389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Natural polymer-based scaffolds for soft tissue repair. Mini Review. Chen M., Jiang R., Deng N., Zhao X., Li X., Guo C. Jul 19;2022 Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. :10. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.954699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.954699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Comparison of polyglycolic acid, polycaprolactone, and collagen as scaffolds for the production of tissue engineered intestine. Liu Y., Nelson T., Chakroff J., Cromeens B., Johnson J., Lannutti J., Besner G.E. Apr;2019 J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 107(3):750–760. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34169. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Biomimetic bilayered scaffolds for tissue engineering: from current design strategies to medical applications. Bertsch C., Maréchal H., Gribova V., Lévy B., Debry C., Lavalle P., Fath L. 2023Advanced healthcare materials. 12(17):2203115. doi: 10.1002/adhm.202203115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Aishwarya B., Revathi V., Singh N., Mathew L., Dhamija K., Fallah M. H., Kalra R. EDP Sciences; Biodegradable Polymer Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Critical Review; p. 01051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Recent advances of responsive scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Zhu T., Zhou H., Chen X., Zhu Y. 2023Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 11:1296881. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1296881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Loh Q. L., Choong C. Dec;2013 Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 19(6):485–502. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0437. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Tailoring Scaffolds for Orthopedic Application With Anti-Microbial Properties: Current Scenario and Future Prospects. Preethi A., Bellare J. R. Feb 18;2021 Frontiers in Materials. :7. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2020.594686. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2020.594686 [DOI]
  71. Biomaterials against bone infection. Vallet-Regí M., Lozano D., González B., Izquierdo-Barba I. 2020Advanced healthcare materials. 9(13):2000310. doi: 10.1002/adhm.202000310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Recent Advances in 3D Printing of Smart Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering and Regeneration. Yuan X., Zhu W., Yang Z., He N., Chen F., Han X., Zhou K. 2024Advanced Materials. 36(34):2403641. doi: 10.1002/adma.202403641. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202403641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Tissue Engineering in Orthopaedics. Tatara A. M., Mikos A. G. Jul 6;2016 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 98(13):1132–9. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.16.00299. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.16.00299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Functional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review of Materials, Methods, and Future Directions. Todd E. A., Mirsky N. A., Silva B. L. G., Shinde A. R., Arakelians A. R. L., Nayak V. V., Marcantonio R. A. C., Gupta N., Witek L., Coelho P. G. 2024Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 15(10):280. doi: 10.3390/jfb15100280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Current concepts in scaffolding for bone tissue engineering. Ghassemi T., Shahroodi A., Ebrahimzadeh M. H., Mousavian A., Movaffagh J., Moradi A. 2018Archives of bone and joint surgery. 6(2):90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Enhancing Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes: The Multifaceted Advantages, Limitations, and Future Directions of 3D Printing Technology. Barakeh W., Zein O., Hemdanieh M., Sleem B., Nassereddine M. May;2024 Cureus. 16(5):e60201. doi: 10.7759/cureus.60201. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.60201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Inosculation of tissue-engineered capillaries with the host's vasculature in a reconstructed skin transplanted on mice. Tremblay P.-L., Hudon V., Berthod F., Germain L., Auger F.A. 2005American journal of transplantation. 5(5):1002–1010. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.00790.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Vascularization in bone tissue engineering constructs. Mercado-Pagán Á. E., Stahl A. M., Shanjani Y., Yang Y. 2015Annals of biomedical engineering. 43:718–729. doi: 10.1007/s10439-015-1253-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Self-regulation of growth in three dimensions. Folkman J., Hochberg M. 1973The Journal of experimental medicine. 138(4):745–753. doi: 10.1084/jem.138.4.745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Vascular tissue engineering: challenges and requirements for an ideal large scale blood vessel. Devillard C. D., Marquette C. A. 2021Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 9:721843. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.721843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Efficient in vivo vascularization of tissue-engineering scaffolds. Hegen A., Blois A., Tiron C. E., Hellesøy M., Micklem D. R., Nör J. E., Akslen L. A., Lorens J. B. 2011Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. 5(4):e52–e62. doi: 10.1002/term.336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Vascular tissue engineering: progress, challenges, and clinical promise. Song H.-H.G., Rumma R.T., Ozaki C.K., Edelman E.R., Chen C.S. 2018Cell stem cell. 22(3):340–354. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.02.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. A porous scaffold for bone tissue engineering/45S5 Bioglass® derived porous scaffolds for co-culturing osteoblasts and endothelial cells. Deb S., Mandegaran R., Di Silvio L. 2010Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 21:893–905. doi: 10.1007/s10856-009-3936-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Hydrogels for tissue engineering: scaffold design variables and applications. Drury J. L., Mooney D. J. 2003Biomaterials. 24(24):4337–4351. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00340-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Vascularization and Innervation for Bone Tissue Engineering. Chen S., Zhou X., Li T., He C. Sep 27;2024 Accounts of Materials Research. 5(9):1121–1133. doi: 10.1021/accountsmr.4c00165. https://doi.org/10.1021/accountsmr.4c00165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Current State of Cartilage Tissue Engineering using Nanofibrous Scaffolds and Stem Cells. Kazemnejad S., Khanmohammadi M., Baheiraei N., Arasteh S. 2017Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 9(2):50–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Vascularization of tissue engineered cartilage - Sequential in vivo MRI display functional blood circulation. Apelgren P., Amoroso M., Säljö K., Montelius M., Lindahl A., Stridh Orrhult L., Gatenholm P., Kölby L. Sep 1;2021 Biomaterials. 276:121002. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Nonvascularized Cartilage Grafts Versus Vascularized Cartilage Flaps: Comparison of Cartilage Quality;Months After Transfer. Higgins J. P., Borumandi F., Bürger H. K., Benlidayı M. E., Vasilyeva A., Sencar L., Polat S., Gaggl A. J. 2018Journal of Hand Surgery. 43(2):188.e1–188.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.09.014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Orthopedic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

RESOURCES