Table 1.

Commonly used biomaterials and their useful properties for SMTE.

Biomaterial	Natural/Synthetic	Advantages	Disadvantages	Types of scaffolds	Authors
Fibrin	Natural	Biocompatible, biodegradable, combination of materials possible, functionalization with growth factors, cell encapsulation, injectable, cell adhesive cues, tunable porosity, can enhance myoblast differentiation	Potential immunogenicity, limitation in fabrication due to denaturation, lack of mechanical strength	Hydrogels (application as 3D scaffolds), 2D pattered surfaces, coatings	ASM International, 2003; Huang et al., 2004; Borschel et al., 2006; Matsumoto et al., 2007; Bian and Bursac, 2009, 2012; Lam et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013; Heher et al., 2015; Qazi et al., 2015
Collagen	Natural	Biocompatible, biodegradable, combination of materials possible, interconnectivity, macroporous structure, topographical cues, cell adhesive cues, tunable porosity, can enhance myoblast differentiation, injectable	Potential immunogenicity, limitation in fabrication due to denaturation, lack of mechanical strength	Hydrogels (application as 3D scaffolds), 2D pattered surfaces, coatings	Vandenburgh et al., 1988; Shansky et al., 1997; Okano and Matsuda, 1998a,b; Powell et al., 2002; ASM International, 2003; Cheema et al., 2003; Kroehne et al., 2008; Bian and Bursac, 2009; Rhim et al., 2010; Hinds et al., 2011; Ma et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2012; Qazi et al., 2015; Han et al., 2016
Gelatin	Natural	Biocompatible, biodegradable, combination of materials possible, topographical cues, can enhance myoblast differentiation	Potential immunogenicity, limitation in fabrication due to denaturation, lack of mechanical strength	Coatings	ASM International, 2003; Hosseini et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2014; Qazi et al., 2015
Alginate	Natural	Biocompatible, biodegradable, high surface area, interconnectivity, functionalization with growth factors, cell encapsulation, injectable, cell adhesive cues, tunable porosity, macroporous structure, minimally invasive	Potential immunogenicity, limitation in fabrication due to denaturation, lack of mechanical strength, need for adhesive cues (RGD)	Hydrogels (application as 3D scaffolds)	ASM International, 2003; Hill et al., 2006a,b; Borselli et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014; Qazi et al., 2015; Han et al., 2016
Chitin/chitosan	Natural	Biocompatible, biodegradable, topographical cues, varying mechanical properties, tunable porosity	Potential immunogenicity, limitation in fabrication due to denaturation, lack of mechanical strength	Grooved scaffolds, application as 3D scaffolds	ASM International, 2003; Jana et al., 2013; Qazi et al., 2015
Decellularized tissues/ECM	Natural	Tunable structural integrity, native structural and biochemical cues, matches host tissue, mechanical properties, bioactive	Potential immunogenicity, processing relies on chemical/biological agents which break down natural ECM structure, acquisition of material more complicated - especially for human tissue	Hydrogels (application as 3D scaffolds), full thickness in vitro	ASM International, 2003; Borschel et al., 2004; Conconi et al., 2005; De Coppi et al., 2006; Mase et al., 2010; Merritt et al., 2010; Machingal et al., 2011; Perniconi et al., 2011; DeQuach et al., 2012; Wolf et al., 2012; Corona et al., 2014; Sicari et al., 2014; Qazi et al., 2015
Hyaluronic acid	Natural	Biocompatible, biodegradable, tunability, injectable, cell encapsulation, minimally invasive	Potential immunogenicity, limitation in fabrication due to denaturation	Hydrogels (application as 3D scaffolds)	ASM International, 2003; Rossi et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Qazi et al., 2015; Han et al., 2016
PEG	Synthetic	Biocompatible, high tunability, injectable, cell encapsulation, minimally invasive	Recellularization is slow, poor support in remodeling, lack of adhesive sites for cell attachment	Hydrogels (application as 3D scaffolds)	Kim et al., 2010b; Bao Ha et al., 2013; Qazi et al., 2015; Han et al., 2016
PLLA	Synthetic	Biocompatible, combination of materials possible, offer topographical cues, tunability (e.g., groove width and depth), electrically conductive, can enhance myoblast differentiation	Recellularization is slow, poor support in remodeling, lack of adhesive sites for cell attachment	2D patterned surfaces, electrospun fibers with tunable ridge width, alignment and variable composition of polymer material	Gunatillake et al., 2003; Huang et al., 2006a; Bao Ha et al., 2013; Qazi et al., 2015
PLGA	Synthetic	Biocompatible, biodegradable, combination of materials possible, offer topographical cues, tunability (e.g., groove width and depth), electrically conductive, can enhance myoblast differentiation	Recellularization is slow, poor support in remodeling, lack of adhesive sites for cell attachment	2D patterned surfaces, electrospun fibers with tunable ridge width, alignment and variable composition of polymer material	Gunatillake et al., 2003; Aviss et al., 2010; Bao Ha et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2014; Qazi et al., 2015
PCL	Synthetic	Biocompatible, biodegradable, combination of materials possible, offer topographical cues, tunability (e.g., groove width and depth), electrically conductive, can enhance myoblast differentiation, can be used in drug delivery systems	Recellularization is slow, poor support in remodeling, lack of adhesive sites for cell attachment	2D patterned surfaces electrospun fibers with tunable ridge width, alignment and variable composition of polymer material	Gunatillake et al., 2003; Choi et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2010b; Ku et al., 2012; Bao Ha et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2013; Qazi et al., 2015