Journal of Biotechnology & Biomaterials
Open Access

Bone tissue engineering; Biomaterials; Injectable systems; Hybrid scaffolds; Bone regeneration; Regenerative medicine; Scaffolds; Tissue repair; Biocompatibility; Bioactivity.

Bone tissue engineering (BTE) aims to repair or replace damaged bone using a combination of biomaterials, cells, and bioactive molecules. As bone defects resulting from trauma, disease, or congenital conditions become increasingly prevalent, traditional methods like autografts and allografts often fall short in addressing the long-term needs of patients. These approaches face challenges such as donor site morbidity, immune rejection, and limited availability. Therefore, BTE has emerged as a promising alternative, offering a solution for bone regeneration by utilizing engineered biomaterials capable of mimicking the natural bone environment.

Biomaterials serve as the foundational component in bone tissue engineering by providing scaffolds that support cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation while promoting tissue regeneration. Recent advances in material science have enabled the development of innovative biomaterials designed to meet the complex needs of bone repair. Among these innovations, injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds have gained significant attention. These advancements address key challenges such as ease of application, customization for specific defect types, and improved mechanical and biological properties [1].

Injectable biomaterials, which can be delivered through minimally invasive procedures, offer numerous benefits for bone repair. They can flow into irregularly shaped defects, hard-to-reach areas, and non-load-bearing regions, providing uniform coverage and facilitating faster healing. Additionally, these materials can be engineered to gel in situ, allowing for precise control over their application. Injectable systems can also incorporate various growth factors, stem cells, and bioactive molecules to enhance their regenerative potential.

Hybrid scaffolds, which combine synthetic and natural materials, represent another promising approach in BTE. By integrating the strengths of both material types, hybrid scaffolds can overcome the limitations of each component when used alone. For example, synthetic materials often offer superior mechanical properties, while natural materials provide better biocompatibility and bioactivity. Hybrid scaffolds can therefore be tailored to mimic the composition and function of native bone more effectively. Moreover, the combination of these materials can lead to improved cell infiltration, vascularization, and osteogenic differentiation.

Despite the significant progress made in injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds, challenges remain in their clinical translation. Issues such as material stability, controlled release of bioactive molecules, and scalability need to be addressed before these innovations can achieve widespread clinical use. Moreover, the ability to precisely control the structure, porosity, and degradation rates of these materials remains a major hurdle.

In this review, we explore the latest innovations in injectable biomaterials and hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. We highlight recent advancements in material design, fabrication techniques, and the integration of bioactive factors, as well as the potential applications and challenges associated with these innovations. By providing an in-depth analysis of the current state of the field, this work aims to shed light on the future direction of bone tissue engineering and the promising role of injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds in advancing bone regeneration strategies [2].

Materials and Methods

The development of injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering involves a multidisciplinary approach, combining materials science, biology, and engineering techniques. The materials used in bone tissue engineering are chosen for their ability to mimic the properties of native bone, such as mechanical strength, biocompatibility, biodegradability, and osteoinductivity. The following section outlines the materials and methods employed in the development and characterization of injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds for bone regeneration.

Materials selection

Injectable biomaterials

Injectable biomaterials used in bone tissue engineering are typically hydrogels, pastes, or injectable foams that can be delivered minimally invasively. Common materials include:

Polymeric Hydrogels: Materials such as poly(lactic acid) (PLA), poly(glycolic acid) (PGA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and gelatin-based hydrogels are widely used due to their favorable biodegradability, tunable mechanical properties, and ability to incorporate bioactive molecules.

Natural Polymers: Collagen, chitosan, alginate, hyaluronic acid, and fibrin are natural polymers that offer high biocompatibility and cell affinity, which are critical for bone regeneration.

Ceramics: Calcium phosphate-based materials (e.g., hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate) are often included for their osteoconductivity and bioactivity in bone repair [3].

Hybrid scaffolds

Hybrid scaffolds combine synthetic and natural materials to enhance both the mechanical and biological properties of the scaffold. These materials can be fabricated into porous structures with controlled porosity and surface morphology to support cell infiltration and bone formation. Key components include:

Synthetic Polymers: PLA, PLGA, polycaprolactone (PCL), and poly(lactic acid-co-ε-caprolactone) (PLCL) are used for their excellent mechanical strength and tunable degradation rates.

Natural Materials: Collagen, chitosan, and silk fibroin are integrated with synthetic polymers to provide improved biocompatibility, cell adhesion, and osteogenic differentiation potential [4].

Bioactive Ceramic Materials: Hydroxyapatite (HA), bioactive glasses, and calcium phosphate are used in hybrid scaffolds for their bone-like structure and ability to enhance osteogenesis.

Fabrication methods

Injectable biomaterials fabrication

Injectable biomaterials are typically fabricated using the following techniques:

Solvent Casting and Particulate Leaching: This method involves dissolving the polymer in a solvent, followed by the incorporation of salt particles or other leachable materials. After casting, the salt is leached out, leaving a porous structure.

3D Printing and Direct Ink Writing: 3D printing technology, such as extrusion-based or inkjet-based methods, is used to create highly customizable injectable systems with complex geometries and controlled porosity.

Freeze-Drying: This method involves freezing the material followed by sublimation of the solvent under vacuum, resulting in a porous structure that retains the shape and properties of the injectable material [5].

Hybrid scaffold fabrication

Hybrid scaffolds are generally created using advanced fabrication techniques to combine synthetic and natural materials:

Electrospinning: Electrospinning is used to fabricate nanofibrous scaffolds that closely mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) of natural bone. Electrospun fibers from synthetic polymers (PLGA, PCL) and natural polymers (collagen, silk fibroin) can be combined to create a scaffold with desirable mechanical and biological properties.

Freeze-Drying: This technique is also applied to hybrid materials to achieve highly porous structures, often in combination with ceramics like HA or bioactive glass to enhance osteoconductivity.

Melt-Extrusion: Hybrid scaffolds can also be created using melt-extrusion techniques, where polymers are combined with bioactive ceramics or growth factors and processed into filamentous structures. These filaments are then assembled into scaffolds with controlled architecture.

Characterization of biomaterials

The properties of injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds must be thoroughly characterized to evaluate their suitability for bone tissue engineering applications.

Mechanical properties

Compression Testing: To evaluate the mechanical strength and stiffness of the scaffolds, compression testing is performed to determine how well the materials can withstand the forces encountered in the bone healing process.

Tensile Testing: For materials that are used in load-bearing applications, tensile strength testing is performed to assess the material's resistance to stretching and deformation.

Elastic Modulus: The elastic modulus of the scaffolds is assessed to determine their ability to mimic the mechanical properties of natural bone [6].

Biocompatibility and cytotoxicity

Cell Viability Assays: The cytotoxicity of the biomaterials is assessed using assays such as MTT or Alamar Blue to determine the effects of the materials on cell viability.

Cell Attachment and Proliferation Studies: Cells (e.g., osteoblasts, mesenchymal stem cells) are cultured on the biomaterials, and their attachment and proliferation are evaluated using microscopy and DNA quantification assays.

In Vivo Biocompatibility: Animal models are used to assess the long-term biocompatibility and integration of the biomaterials with surrounding tissues. Histological analysis of tissue samples provides insight into the inflammatory response and tissue healing [7].

Degradation and bioactivity

In Vitro Degradation: The degradation rate of the biomaterials is studied by immersing them in simulated body fluid (SBF) or other relevant mediums and measuring the changes in mass, pH, and morphology over time.

Bioactive Molecule Release: The controlled release of bioactive factors (e.g., growth factors, stem cells) from injectable or hybrid materials is measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or other relevant techniques to assess the sustained release over time.

Osteogenic potential

Gene Expression Analysis: To evaluate the osteogenic potential of the biomaterials, gene expression analysis (e.g., RT-PCR) is conducted to assess the expression of key osteogenic markers such as alkaline phosphatase (ALP), collagen type I, and osteocalcin [8].

Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) Activity: ALP activity assays are used to quantify the early stages of osteogenesis in cells cultured on the biomaterials.

Mineralization Studies: Alizarin red staining and von Kossa staining are used to assess the mineralization of cells cultured on the scaffolds, which indicates the formation of bone-like structures.

In vivo studies

In vivo evaluation is essential to assess the efficacy of injectable biomaterials and hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration:

Animal Models: Small animal models (e.g., rats, rabbits, or mice) are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the biomaterials in promoting bone repair in critical-sized bone defects. The materials are implanted into bone defects, and healing is monitored over time [9].

Radiological Imaging: X-ray and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) imaging are employed to monitor the progression of bone formation and scaffold degradation over time.

Histological Analysis: After sacrifice, tissue samples are collected and processed for histological examination to assess the degree of new bone formation, scaffold degradation, and tissue integration.

By combining these materials and methods, injectable biomaterials and hybrid scaffolds can be effectively designed, fabricated, and evaluated for their potential in bone tissue engineering applications. These techniques provide a comprehensive approach for developing next-generation materials that enhance bone regeneration and healing [10].

Discussion

Bone tissue engineering (BTE) has experienced remarkable progress with the development of innovative biomaterials, particularly injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds, which have significantly enhanced the regenerative potential for bone repair. These materials address critical challenges in bone regeneration, such as improving the delivery of cells and bioactive factors to the defect site, providing mechanical support, and ensuring efficient tissue integration. However, despite their advancements, several aspects of these biomaterials require further investigation to fully unlock their clinical potential.

Injectable systems, in particular, offer promising advantages in minimally invasive procedures. The ability to inject biomaterials directly into irregularly shaped bone defects allows for better customization, ensuring that even complex voids can be adequately filled. Moreover, injectable biomaterials, such as hydrogels and pastes, have demonstrated the potential to encapsulate growth factors, stem cells, and other bioactive molecules, thereby facilitating localized, sustained release that can accelerate healing and enhance bone formation. This controlled release mechanism is crucial for mimicking the natural regenerative processes and optimizing therapeutic outcomes. However, the challenge remains in achieving long-term stability and maintaining the mechanical integrity of these injectable materials once implanted. While some injectable biomaterials are designed to gel in situ, their mechanical properties may not always match those of native bone, limiting their utility in load-bearing applications.

Hybrid scaffolds, which combine synthetic and natural materials, represent another major advancement in BTE. These scaffolds provide an effective approach to balancing the mechanical strength of synthetic polymers with the bioactivity and biocompatibility of natural materials. By incorporating bioactive ceramics like hydroxyapatite or bioactive glass into hybrid structures, these scaffolds can promote osteointegration and enhance the osteogenic potential of stem cells or progenitor cells seeded onto the scaffolds. Furthermore, hybrid scaffolds are highly customizable, allowing for the creation of scaffolds with tailored degradation rates, porosity, and surface properties. This customization enables the design of scaffolds that more closely mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) of natural bone, promoting better cell adhesion, infiltration, and vascularization.

Despite their promise, both injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds face significant hurdles in translation from bench to bedside. One major concern is the precise control of degradation rates. Both types of biomaterials must degrade at a rate that supports bone regeneration while preventing premature failure of the scaffold. Faster degradation can lead to inadequate mechanical support, while slower degradation may hinder tissue remodeling. Additionally, ensuring the homogeneity of the material and uniform distribution of bioactive molecules within injectable systems or hybrid scaffolds remains challenging, as non-uniformity could lead to inconsistent healing outcomes.

Another challenge lies in the immune response and inflammation. Although natural materials such as collagen and hyaluronic acid generally exhibit excellent biocompatibility, the immune response to synthetic polymers or bioactive ceramics can sometimes result in chronic inflammation or fibrous encapsulation, which may hinder the healing process. Therefore, a careful balance of material composition and surface modification is required to prevent adverse immune reactions while promoting tissue integration.

Moreover, scalability remains a challenge for the large-scale production of injectable biomaterials and hybrid scaffolds. While small-scale production has demonstrated success, translating these technologies into mass production for clinical use requires optimization of fabrication methods such as 3D printing, electrospinning, and freeze-drying. Ensuring reproducibility in material properties and quality control is essential for consistent clinical outcomes.

In terms of clinical application, preclinical studies in animal models have shown promising results, but human clinical trials are needed to fully assess the safety and efficacy of these materials. Furthermore, the potential for personalized medicine, wherein biomaterials are tailored to an individual’s specific defect site, opens up new avenues for treatment. However, regulatory approval and long-term studies will be required to confirm the success of such personalized approaches.

In conclusion, injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds have revolutionized bone tissue engineering by offering innovative solutions to address the limitations of traditional bone repair strategies. These materials enable the development of more effective, patient-specific treatment options. However, challenges related to material performance, immune responses, and large-scale production must be addressed before their widespread clinical adoption. Ongoing research focused on optimizing material properties, enhancing biodegradability, and controlling the release of bioactive molecules will be key to advancing these technologies in bone regeneration. With continued advancements, injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds hold great promise in improving the outcomes of bone tissue engineering and offering effective solutions for patients with bone defects.

Conclusion

The field of bone tissue engineering (BTE) has witnessed substantial progress with the introduction of injectable biomaterials and hybrid scaffolds, offering new solutions to long-standing challenges in bone regeneration. These innovations provide significant advantages, such as minimally invasive delivery, customizable design, and the potential for sustained release of bioactive molecules, which can enhance bone healing and regeneration. Injectable systems, such as hydrogels and pastes, offer the ability to conform to complex bone defect geometries, facilitating precise placement and promoting effective tissue integration. Meanwhile, hybrid scaffolds, which combine the strengths of synthetic and natural materials, provide an optimal balance between mechanical strength and biological functionality, mimicking the natural extracellular matrix (ECM) and supporting cell growth, differentiation, and vascularization.

The incorporation of bioactive factors and stem cells into both injectable and hybrid systems holds great promise for accelerating bone repair and promoting osteogenesis. By integrating ceramics like hydroxyapatite or bioactive glass into hybrid scaffolds, researchers have been able to enhance osteoconductivity, improving the ability of these materials to foster bone formation and integration with surrounding tissue. Furthermore, the adaptability and versatility of these materials allow for the creation of patient-specific solutions, paving the way for personalized bone regeneration strategies tailored to the unique needs of individuals.

However, despite the advancements, several challenges remain before these technologies can be fully translated into clinical practice. Issues related to the mechanical properties of injectable systems, particularly in load-bearing applications, must be addressed to ensure that these materials can provide adequate support during bone healing. Additionally, the precise control of degradation rates and the uniform distribution of bioactive agents within the scaffolds remain critical factors influencing their success. Another significant challenge is the immune response to synthetic components, which may lead to inflammation or fibrosis and hinder effective tissue integration.

Furthermore, the scalability of fabrication methods and the reproducibility of material properties are essential considerations for clinical translation. While promising results have been achieved in preclinical models, further research and clinical trials are necessary to confirm the safety and efficacy of these biomaterials in human applications. The continued exploration of new fabrication techniques, surface modifications, and material combinations will be crucial in overcoming these challenges.

In conclusion, injectable systems and hybrid scaffolds represent cutting-edge advancements in bone tissue engineering, with the potential to revolutionize the treatment of bone defects and injuries. As research continues to evolve, these materials may play a central role in the future of regenerative medicine, offering effective, personalized, and minimally invasive treatments for patients with bone-related conditions. However, to fully realize their potential, ongoing work is needed to refine their properties, address clinical challenges, and validate their safety and effectiveness through rigorous clinical trials. With continued innovation and optimization, these biomaterials will undoubtedly become integral components of advanced bone repair strategies, significantly improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

None

Acknowledgment

None

1. Warnock JN, Al-Rubeai M (2006) Bioreactor systems for the production of biopharmaceuticals from animal cells. Biotechnol Appl Biochem  45:1-12.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Harding MW, Marques LLR, Howard RJ (2009) Can filamentous fungi form biofilms? Trends Microbiol 17: 475-480.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Fukuda H (1995) Immobilized microorganism bioreactors. In Asenjo JA, Merchuk JC. Bioreactor system design. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York 339-375.

Google Scholar

4. Gross R, Schmid A, Buehler K (2012)  Catalytic biofilms: a powerful concept for future bioprocesses. In: Lear G, Lewis GD (eds) Microbial biofilms  193-222.

Indexed at, Crossref

5. Kobayashi M, Shimizu S (2000)  Nitrile hydrolases. Curr Opin Chem Biol  4: 95-102.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Murphy CD (2012)  The microbial cell factory. Org Biomol Chem 10:1949-1957.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Crueger W, Crueger A, Brock TD (1990)  Biotechnology. A textbook of industrial microbiology, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.

Google Scholar

8. Kersters K, Lisdiyanti P, Komagata K (2006)  The family Acetobacteracea: the genera Acetobacter, Acidomonas, Asaia, Gluconacetobacter, Gluconobacter, and Kozakia. In: Dworkin M (ed) Prokaryotes, vol 5. Springer Science? Business Media, New York  163-200.

Google Scholar

9. Li XZ, Hauer B, Rosche B (2007)  Single-species microbial biofilm screening for industrial applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol  76:1255-1262.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Cronenberg CCH, Ottengraf SPP, Vandenheuvel JC (1994)  Influence of age and structure of penicillium chrysogenum pellets on the internal concentration profiles. Bioprocess Eng  10: 209-216.

Google Scholar