Table 3 Biocompatibility of 3D printing zirconia scaffolds
From: 3D printed zirconia used as dental materials: a critical review
Raw materials | Surface Treatment | In vivo or in vitro | Cells or animals tested | Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZrO2/SiO2 | - | In vitro | MG63 | 50wt% zirconia powder group showed the best proliferation. | [62] |
PCL/ZrO2 | - | In vitro | MC3T3 | The PCL/ZrO2 composite scaffold group showed better cell adhesion, proliferation and growth and showed better ALP activity and accommodated more effective bone mineralization. | [63] |
BCP/ZrO2 | - | In vitro | MG63 hMSCs | BCP/ZrO2 scaffold had a good biocompatible property on proliferation of MG63 cells and promoted osteogenic differentiation. | [64] |
HAP/ZrO2 | - | In vitro | mBMSCs | Stem cells adhered, grew, and proliferated on HAP/ZrO2. HAP/ZrO2 ceramics had good porosity, high surface roughness, and are easy for cells to climb. | [65] |
ZrO2/CS | - | In vitro | MC3T3-E1 | Scaffolds doped with more CS possessed better biological activity and were more beneficial to MC3T3-E1 cells proliferation and differentiation. | [66] |
ZrO2/RGO/HA | - | In vitro | AD-MSCs | HA and GO had a more beneficial presence to reduce cytotoxicity than individual presence. | [67] |
ZrO2 | Zn-HA/glass | In vitro | DPCs | The composite constructs exhibited superior cell-adhesion, distribution, and osteogenic differentiation ability. | [68] |
ZrO2 | HA/CS | In vitro | MC3T3-E1 | CS/HA coating on the surface of zirconia scaffold had a positive effect on the proliferation of MC3T3-E1 cells. | [69] |
ZrO2 | ZnO | In vivo | New Zealand white rabbits | HE staining results indicate mild inflammatory response. ZrO2–ZnO ceramics had good biocompatibility when contacting bone tissue and surrounding muscle tissue. | [70] |
ZrO2 | - | In vivo | Rat (PDGFRs, osterix, osteopontinand osteocalcin | The bone formation has been considerably enriched in GBR sites using 3D printed zirconia barrier. | [71] |