Potential of organ‑on‑a‑chip in advancing synthetic extracellular matrix technology for bone tissue engineering in dentistry (Review)

Syahruddin,Muhammad Hidayat; Ana,Ika Dewi; Belyaev,Dmitry; Irnawati,Dyah; Wihadmadyatami,Hevi; Beshchasna,Natalia; Anggraeni,Rahmi

doi:10.3892/br.2025.2079

January-2026 Volume 24 Issue 1

Full Size Image

Journals

International Journal of Molecular Medicine

International Journal of Molecular Medicine is an international journal devoted to molecular mechanisms of human disease.

International Journal of Oncology

International Journal of Oncology is an international journal devoted to oncology research and cancer treatment.

Molecular Medicine Reports

Covers molecular medicine topics such as pharmacology, pathology, genetics, neuroscience, infectious diseases, molecular cardiology, and molecular surgery.

Oncology Reports

Oncology Reports is an international journal devoted to fundamental and applied research in Oncology.

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine is an international journal devoted to laboratory and clinical medicine.

Oncology Letters

Oncology Letters is an international journal devoted to Experimental and Clinical Oncology.

Biomedical Reports

Explores a wide range of biological and medical fields, including pharmacology, genetics, microbiology, neuroscience, and molecular cardiology.

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

International journal addressing all aspects of oncology research, from tumorigenesis and oncogenes to chemotherapy and metastasis.

World Academy of Sciences Journal

Multidisciplinary open-access journal spanning biochemistry, genetics, neuroscience, environmental health, and synthetic biology.

International Journal of Functional Nutrition

Open-access journal combining biochemistry, pharmacology, immunology, and genetics to advance health through functional nutrition.

International Journal of Epigenetics

Publishes open-access research on using epigenetics to advance understanding and treatment of human disease.

Medicine International

An International Open Access Journal Devoted to General Medicine.

January-2026 Volume 24 Issue 1

Full Size Image

Review Open Access

Potential of organ‑on‑a‑chip in advancing synthetic extracellular matrix technology for bone tissue engineering in dentistry (Review)

Authors:
- Muhammad Hidayat Syahruddin
- Ika Dewi Ana
- Dmitry Belyaev
- Dyah Irnawati
- Hevi Wihadmadyatami
- Natalia Beshchasna
- Rahmi Anggraeni
View Affiliations / Copyright

Affiliations: Doctoral Program in Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia, Center of Excellence for Carbonate Apatite-based Extracellular Matrix and Adjuvant, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia, Department of Bio‑ and Nanotechnology, Group of Biodegradation and Nanofunctionalization, Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Systems, D‑01109 Dresden, Germany, Department of Dental Biomaterials Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia, Research Collaboration Center for Biomedical Scaffolds, National Research and Innovation Agency‑Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

Copyright: © Syahruddin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Article Number: 6
|
Published online on: November 3, 2025

https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2025.2079
Expand metrics +

Abstract

Bone tissue engineering (BTE) is a cutting‑edge approach within biomedical sciences, especially in regenerative medicine, addressing key challenges such as organ transplantation and complex tissue repair. At the core of BTE is the development of biomimetic scaffolds to replicate native tissue environments. However, conventional models often fall short in accurately mimicking the complexity of human tissue microenvironments. Organ‑on‑a‑chip (OOAC) technology offers a transformative alternative. These microscale systems combine microfluidics, biomaterials and cell cultures to emulate the structural and functional characteristics of human tissue. OOAC platforms facilitate dynamic, real‑time evaluation of scaffold biocompatibility, cellular interactions and mechanical properties under physiological conditions. By overcoming the limitations of traditional preclinical models, OOAC systems minimize the need for animal testing, improve predictive accuracy for in vivo outcomes and accelerate the path to clinical translation. The present study aimed to summarize scaffold development for BTE, with a focus on dental applications, and highlights the integration of OOAC technology. These innovations possess the potential to revolutionize scaffold design and advance broader biomedical research applications.

1. Introduction

Certain animal species exhibit regenerative abilities, such as amphibians and zebrafish, which can restore lost or damaged body parts (1). As scientific understanding of this phenomenon has deepened, focus has shifted toward overcoming the limitations of human healing (2-4). Unlike regenerative species, humans lack the capacity to fully regenerate complex tissue after injury or disease. This biological limitation has spurred the advancement of regenerative medicine (RM), an interdisciplinary field that integrates biology, engineering, and clinical sciences to promote tissue repair or replacement, stimulate organ regeneration, restore lost function, and reduce reliance on donor transplants in cases of disease, trauma, or congenital conditions (2-4).

Traditional medical treatments frequently encounter two major challenges: The scarcity of suitable tissue or organ donors and the potential for immune rejection in recipients (5,6). These issues have driven the evolution of tissue engineering (TE), now a pivotal component of RM. TE employs biomaterials, biological signals and engineering techniques to develop structures that facilitate healing or replace damaged tissue (7). This approach offers therapeutic solutions that are adaptable, scalable, and more compatible with natural repair mechanisms of the body (7-9).

Bone tissue, although dynamic and naturally capable of self-repair, can be critically impaired by traumatic injury or congenital conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta and fibrous dysplasia (10,11) In such cases, its regenerative capacity may prove inadequate (12-16). Surgical interventions remain a standard treatment, yet they are not always effective, particularly in cases involving complex defects (17,18). TE provides an alternative pathway to the creation of constructs that replicate the native structure and function of bone, aiming to improve biological integration and expedite recovery.

Progress in bone TE (BTE) has introduced a systematic approach involving the application of porous scaffolds, bioactive signals and cell-based approaches (19-22). These scaffolds serve as three-dimensional (3D) frameworks that simulate the extracellular matrix, offering physical support and directing cell activity. Crucial parameters such as porosity, mechanical strength and surface chemistry determine the effectiveness of these constructs in vivo (23). To fulfil these criteria, advanced fabrication techniques, such as microfluidics-assisted manufacturing, have been used to produce biomaterials with precise microscale architectural control (24,25).

Organ-on-a-chip (OOAC) technology is a micro-engineered platform capable of mimicking organ functions on a chip-scale device (26). By integrating principles from materials science, fluid dynamics and cellular biology, OOAC enables the modeling of tissue interactions under controlled physiologically relevant conditions (27). Compared with static cultures and animal studies, OOAC offers more accurate insight into cellular responses and biomaterial compatibility, while also addressing ethical concerns and translational challenges (28-30). Although the applications of OOAC in BTE remain limited due to the novelty of the technology and the predominance of conventional in vitro and in vivo platforms in preclinical research, initial studies indicate potential for preclinical scaffold evaluation (31-33).

In dental and craniofacial research, OOAC systems have demonstrated promise in replicating the bone and periodontal microenvironments. These models facilitate real-time observation of cell behavior under mechanical forces, responses to biomaterials and contributions to mineral formation. Such platforms provide innovative methods for assessing the performance of scaffolds, drug delivery carriers and regenerative therapies, thereby decreasing reliance on animal testing (31,34). As personalized medicine continues to advance, OOAC may become a key interface between laboratory innovation and clinical application, particularly in the development of customized regenerative solutions (34). The present review aimed to summarize the role of OOAC in BTE and its challenges and prospects in comparison with conventional approaches.

2. Methods

The literature search was performed using PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), ScienceDirect (sciencedirect.com/), and Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/) databases, employing a combination of controlled vocabulary and free-text terms. The search string applied was: (‘organ-on-a-chip’ OR ‘organ chip’ OR ‘organ-on-chip’) AND (‘scaffold’ OR ‘bone tissue engineering’ OR ‘biomaterial’). The search was further refined using the following criteria: i) Full text availability, ii) published between January 2014 and January 2024 and iii) written in English language (Fig. 1). These criteria were chosen to ensure the inclusion of the most recent, relevant and high-impact advancements in the rapidly evolving field of OOAC technology and its incorporation into BTE applications. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers (MHS and IDA), and the full texts of eligible articles were subsequently reviewed for inclusion. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The initial PubMed and ScienceDirect searches yielded 2,311 and 2,945 studies related to OOAC, respectively. Of these, 118 articles were associated with scaffold fabrication, TE or BTE. Scopus database yielded 43 additional articles; six of these overlapped with those identified in PubMed and were therefore excluded. In total, 155 articles were identified. Inclusion criteria were applied to exclude manuals, notes, or guidelines, retaining only review articles, systematic reviews or original research papers.

Figure 1

Identification, screening and inclusion of the articles for the study.

3. Bone overview: Biology, common problems and the remodeling process

Bones are complex, dynamic and highly organized structures (35). They possess a unique combination of stiffness and the ability to transmit compressive, bending and torsional loads (36). In TE, a deep understanding of the fundamental structure of bone tissue is essential for effectively replicating its structure and function. The bone framework is composed of two layers of osseous tissue. The cortical bone, which forms the external surface, is characterized by low porosity and high mechanical strength. This dense outer layer provides structural support and protection. By contrast, cancellous (trabecular) bone exhibits a porosity ranging from 80 to 90%. This spongy inner layer is metabolically active and plays a critical role in facilitating joint function and limb movement (36-39).

The quantity and quality of bone are key determinants of its strength. Bone quantity is influenced by factors such as bone mineral density and porosity, whereas bone quality is associated with material composition and characteristics, including microstructures, geometry and mechanical properties (Table I) (39-49). Bone tissue features a highly developed vascular network and comprises multiple components, including the osteoid matrix, primarily made of type I collagen fibers, along with the mineral bone salt hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate (CaP), water, non-collagenous protein, proteoglycans, lipids, growth factors, cytokines and bone cells (Fig. 2) (50-54). The skeletal system includes four distinct types of bone cells (osteoblasts, osteoclasts, osteocytes and bone lining cells), which maintain an integrated skeletal structure (55,56). Osteoblasts are responsible for bone formation (57-60), while osteoclasts mediate bone resorption (61,62). Bone lining cells contribute to osteoclast differentiation and inhibit direct contact between osteoclasts and the bone matrix (56,57). Furthermore, osteocytes possess mechanosensitive capabilities that enable intercellular communication between bone cells and serve a regulatory role in the activity of osteoblasts and osteoclasts (63-70).

Figure 2

Biology of the bone. Bone is composed of hybrid organic and inorganic materials. Created with BioRender.com.

Table I

Mechanical properties of human bone.

While bone tissue is key for providing structural support and serving as a reservoir for vital ions in the body (71), it is susceptible to various conditions that compromise its function and integrity, including osteoporosis, osteonecrosis, infection and inflammation, cancer, metastases and autoimmune conditions, all of which impair this tissue (72). These conditions contribute to decreased quality of life and/or increased mortality. For example, osteoporosis notably diminishes bone mass and alters bone structure, thereby increasing the risk of fractures (73). Recognized as a serious public health concern, osteoporosis affects ~200 million people worldwide (74), with a global prevalence of ~18%, according to a meta-analysis (75). Data from the US and the United Kingdom further indicate that fractures are highly prevalent, with >500.000 (UK) and 1.5 million (US) fragility fractures each year impacting millions of patients and placing a considerable financial strain (76,77). In addition to osteoporosis, evidence, including findings from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), consistently highlights the high global incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis (78,79). This condition is especially widespread among the elderly, female patients, and correlated with factors such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, comorbidities, and BMI (80-84).

In addition to degenerative conditions such as osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, malignant conditions such as osteosarcoma (OS) pose significant challenges in tumor therapy. These challenges stem from difficulties in establishing reliable biomarkers, understanding the mechanisms behind recurrence and accurately identifying the involved cell type. OS is the most common malignant primary bone tumor affecting both children and adults. Identifying the specific cell type is key, as conventional OS can be subdivided into distinct histological subtypes, including osteoblastic, fibroblastic, chondroblastic, epithelioid, giant cell-rich, small cell and telangiectatic forms (85-88). The estimated global incidence of OS is 2-4 cases per million individuals per year. The disease shows two distinct peaks in age distribution: The first, more pronounced, occurs between 15 and 19 years, and the second, less prominent, is observed in individuals aged >60 years (89,90). Additionally, bone tissue is susceptible to metastasis, and disorders such as OS can invade adjacent tissue (91,92).

In general, bone diseases associated with infection, such as osteomyelitis, pose significant concerns, with healthcare costs for fracture-associated infections ~6.5 times higher than those for non-infected cases (93,94). Osteomyelitis can develop by three primary mechanisms: Trauma or contamination, vascular insufficiency or neuropathy and acute hematogenous spread. The condition is most commonly caused by the invasion of Staphylococcus aureus, a Gram-positive bacterium that induces pathological skeletal remodeling (94-96). Moreover, epidemiological data from Germany, the most populous country in the European Union, reveal that the prevalence of osteomyelitis has increased by 10.44% over the past decade, with an incidence rate of 16.7 cases per 100,000 people reported in 2018 (97,98).

In dentistry, periodontitis is a common inflammatory oral disease that affected >1 billion individuals globally in 2021, with numbers continuing to rise, according to the GBD study (99,100). Periodontitis can cause the degradation of connective tissue attachments, leading to progressive bone loss (101,102). This condition is triggered by lipopolysaccharide and other virulence factors produced by specific Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria, commonly known as the red complex, including Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia and Treponema denticola (103-105). Periodontitis adversely impacts quality of life due to clinical manifestations such as gingival inflammation, clinical attachment loss, radiographic signs of alveolar bone loss, deep periodontal pockets, tooth mobility, bleeding on probing and pathological tooth migration (106).

Bone damage or associated conditions severely impair function and compromise overall wellbeing (107-109). Bone regeneration is a dynamically regulated process involving metabolic activity and complex interactions between tissue cells, immune cells and the musculoskeletal system (110-112). Despite rapid progress in TE, achieving effective tissue repair by leveraging natural healing mechanisms remains a substantial challenge for clinicians (110,113,114).

A key aspect of this challenge is the role of niche cells in the bone repair process. Niche cells are essential in establishing a specific microenvironment and transmitting signals that regulate stem cell responses. Cells within this niche (such as inflammatory, endothelial and Schwann cells) influence molecular regulation and thereby enhance osteoblast function following bone injury (115). Following an acute bone injury, inflammatory cells become activated, initiating a cascade triggered by hematoma formation (116,117). The hypoxia and low pH conditions within the hematoma create a transient environment that supports the active infiltration of tissue macrophages and polymorphonuclear neutrophils into the affected area. In fracture healing, resident macrophages from the endosteal and periosteal surfaces contribute to intramembranous ossification. By contrast, inflammatory macrophages recruited to the injury site are involved in endochondral ossification (117). Molecules such as IL-6, chemokine ligand 2, bone morphogenic protein 4 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promote osteogenic differentiation by interacting with nascent osteoprogenitor cells and directing their development toward the osteoblast lineage, thereby enhancing the bone repair process (117-123).

In bone repair, revascularization serves a vital role. Endothelial cells interact with osteoprogenitor cells to establish a microenvironment conducive to osteogenesis. The osteogenesis process is associated with the presence of endothelial cells in the metaphysis and endosteum of long bone (124-126). These cells secrete surface markers such as platelet and endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 and endomucin, which promote the differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells into osteoblasts through the Notch signaling pathway (127). Additionally, the maintenance of skeletal homeostasis and the bone repair process are influenced by the vital roles of sensory and sympathetic nerves, particularly secretion of nerve growth factor (NGF) (128,129). Both NGF, produced by nerve cells, and VEGF, secreted by Schwann cells, enhance the osteogenic differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells, thereby facilitating new bone formation (130). The fate of the osteoblast lineage is determined by the microenvironment, which delivers essential signals that stimulate vascularization and subsequent bone matrix formation, leading to new bone development (115).

To support these complex biological processes, biomaterials in the form of scaffolds are essential in bone regeneration, serving a central role in reestablishing the bone microenvironment. These biomaterials exhibit key properties, including variable surface characteristics, such as topographies (size and shape), roughness and patterning, as well as mechanical traits such as stiffness (131). 3D bioengineered environments, including scaffolds, hydrogels and mono- or multicellular aggregates (spheroids and organoids), have been developed from various biomaterials to recreate a microenvironment that supports bone cell function (131-134). Moreover, multiple factors can be modified in 3D scaffolds, such as overall geometry, porous structure quality and mechanical behavior, all of which are influenced by the scaffold materials and the fabrication method (135).

Another key feature of biomaterials used in bone regeneration is the incorporation of bioactive CaP, which supports osteoconductive, osteoinductive and osseointegration processes as potential regenerative mechanisms (136-139). Both osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties are 3D phenomena (140,141). Osteoconduction involves the ingrowth of capillaries, perivascular tissue and osteoprogenitor cells from the surrounding bone into the 3D porous structure of the implant. It serves both as a guide for osteogenic growth and as a structural bridge across bone defects, supporting the regeneration of bone tissue (142,143). By contrast, osteoinduction refers to the stimulation of undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to differentiate into osteoprogenitor cells, with the goal of generating bone in heterotopic sites (144). Osteointegration, however, is primarily considered a two-dimensional (2D) or surface-level phenomenon, defined by the formation and long-term maintenance of direct contact between the biomaterial surface and bone under functional loading conditions (145-147).

Additionally, advancements in biomaterials research have focused on the application of mechanical stimuli, such as compressive, tensile and flow-induced stresses, using microfluidic devices. This method is being developed to investigate cellular responses and tissue organization involved in bone remodeling (148,149). The present review will further explore the integration of microfluidic-based technology with BTE scaffolds as a key framework for OOAC design.

4. Scaffolds for BTE applications

TE is an interdisciplinary field that integrates cellular biology, synthetic materials and biochemical components to develop a synthetic extracellular matrix (ECM) capable of preserving or regenerating tissues that are diseased, damaged or congenitally impaired (143,144,150,151). The success of a TE approach depends on interaction among these key components, collectively referred to as the TE triad (Fig. 3). First introduced in late 1980s, TE has experienced advancements, contributing to personalized therapy, organ transplants, implants and drug delivery systems, all supported by promising research outcomes (37,152,153). Scaffolds are key elements in TE, designed to mimic the function of native tissue and create an optimal microenvironment that supports the proliferation and differentiation of host cells, ultimately enabling the regeneration of new, functional tissue (154).

Figure 3

Tissue engineering triad consists of three essential components, scaffolds, signaling molecules, and cells, which function either independently or synergistically to promote tissue regeneration. Created with BioRender.com.

Scaffolds are impermanent matrices made from biodegradable biomaterials, serving as 3D frameworks for tissue reconstruction or as carriers for cells, signaling molecules or therapeutic agents (21,155-157). For effective regeneration, cell-free scaffolds must facilitate the recruitment and migration of host cells to the site of injury following implantation. By contrast, cell-combined scaffolds, incorporating various cell types, including stem cells, are engineered to enhance tissue formation through cell proliferation and differentiation. Additionally, substance-combined scaffolds interact with the body by releasing specific molecules, particles or drugs during the degradation process (154,156,157).

Ideal TE scaffolds exhibit key attributes essential for successful tissue regeneration and organ engineering applications, including 3D structure, biocompatibility, controlled and reproducible microarchitectures, surface chemistry conducive to cellular activity, mechanical strength appropriate for the regenerated tissue, tissue-specific biodegradability, porosity and interconnected network for perfusion of beneficial factors and sterilizability (Fig. 4) (158-164). The 3D structure of scaffolds is largely determined by the properties of the biomaterial used and its intended applications. For example, dense tissue such as bone requires a rigid polymeric framework, whereas soft tissue such as nerves demand a more pliable scaffold, and flexible tissue such as skin or blood vessels benefits from a highly adaptable polymeric structure (164). Therefore, adjusting scaffold characteristics is key to meet specific biological, clinical, manufacturing, economic and regulatory demands. In the context of BTE, scaffolds must address key factors such as load-bearing capacity during the repair phase, biological properties, vascularization, integration with host tissue, ease of handling, minimally invasive implantation and the ability to support osteoconduction and osteoinduction (13,154,165).

Figure 4

Aspects in developing bone tissue engineering scaffolds for biomedicine include materials, methods, key attributes, and standards. Created with BioRender.com.

TE scaffolds must also demonstrate a range of biological characteristics to effectively support the development of new tissue. Non-toxicity and biocompatibility are fundamental biological properties that ensure scaffolds mimic and serve as a temporary ECM without disrupting cell processes during degradation (13,166). The progression of scaffolds into smart materials capable of responding dynamically to environmental stimuli underscores the importance not only of biocompatibility (167,168) but also of immunomodulatory capability (167-169) and bioactivity (43,166). Additionally, indicators such as cell vitality, attachment, proliferation, differentiation and surrounding cell signaling, are key parameters in evaluating scaffold performance in both preclinical and clinical settings (170-173).

Scaffolds used in TE must accelerate bone healing while conforming to specific architectural frameworks and functional requirements tailored to the target tissue and site of the defect (174-177). Mechanical properties, including tensile strength, elastic modulus, pore size, surface topology, load-bearing capacity, stiffness, fracture toughness, fatigue resistance and elongation percentage, are critical considerations. These mechanical parameters influence other properties; for example, stiffness can direct specific cellular differentiation, while pore size impacts the scaffold environment, affecting nutrient distribution and cell migration. Furthermore, surface topography serves a crucial role in regulating cellular behavior, by influencing cell adhesion, morphology, proliferation and differentiation (164,178-181). Thus, an optimally designed TE scaffold with appropriate biomechanical characteristics should closely resemble the bone or the tissue intended for replacement.

Equally vital to scaffold performance are its pore and porosity attributes, which are directly associated with structural functionality. The effectiveness of a scaffold is influenced by parameters such as pore size, volume and interconnectivity (42,182,183). Porosity is a key factor in enabling oxygen and nutrient penetration, waste elimination and the development of new blood vessels within the ECM (184). Furthermore, surface topography affects how host cells adhere to the scaffold, directing their responses and facilitating communication between cell types (181,185). Host cells interact with the scaffold surface through adhesion receptors such as integrins, which mediate signal transmission between the scaffold and cells. This interaction prompts integrins to associate with other proteins to form focal adhesion complexes, activating intercellular signaling pathways that guide cellular responses to the implant (178,186-188).

Moreover, sterilizability is a crucial characteristic of TE scaffolds, ensuring their safe application within the body. Polymer scaffolds can be fabricated aseptically or sterilized post-production (189,190). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States of America has approved several sterilization techniques for medical devices, including ethylene oxide gas, autoclaving and γ irradiation, all of which can be applied to TE scaffolds (191). Additional methods, such as ethanol treatment, plasma sterilization, UV irradiation, antibiotic exposure and bleaching with sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate, are also used. It is essential that these methods maintain sterility while preserving the material properties of the scaffold. As most TE scaffolds are composed of polymers, the sterilization technique must not compromise polymer integrity, which could result in hydrolysis, melting or depolymerization (192).

BTE scaffolds are fabricated from a range of materials, typically categorized into four primary groups: Ceramics, polymers, metal and composites. Each material group offers specific applications and advantages suited to particular tissue repair requirements (193,194). To develop an effective scaffold tailored to a specific tissue defect, several strategies can be employed. These include the use of pre-fabricated porous scaffolds made from natural or synthetic biomaterials, decellularized ECM derived from allografts or xenografts, confluent cells with secreted ECM and cell-encapsulated hydrogels (195). Based on their geometric structures, BTE scaffolds may take the form of porous, fibrous, microspherical or solid freeform constructs (194).

Porous scaffolds with interconnected structures (directional or random) support regeneration, vascularization and ECM deposition by enhancing the transport of gases and nutrients through their internal channels. Optimal pore size varies depending on the target tissue: 200-400 for bone, 50-200 for muscle and 10-75 µm for fibrous tissues (196-200). Fibrous scaffolds, synthesized from biodegradable polymers such as polycaprolactone, polylactic acid, gelatin, cellulose and silk fibroin, are beneficial for application in skin, cartilage, ligament, muscle and blood vessels (201-208). Micro- or nanoparticle scaffolds are extensively utilized in gene therapy, drug delivery and the release of bioactive compounds, with effectiveness often depending on their responsiveness to specific stimuli (209-211). Solid freeform scaffolds, created using 3D printing or additive manufacturing technologies, have attracted interest due to their precision and customization capabilities (212-214). The 3D printing process involves fabricating a product that conforms to a pre-designed digital model, which undergoes multiple stages, including model creation, stereolithography (SLA), slicing, material preparation, printing and post-printing refinement (215-218).

Scaffold manufacturing techniques are classified into two categories: Conventional techniques and rapid prototyping methods. Each category encompasses processes that result in distinct scaffold properties (13). Although conventional methods remain widely used, they face limitations in producing intricate geometries and maintaining controlled reproducibility. By contrast, rapid prototyping allows greater design complexity and customization (173). Conventional techniques include freeze-drying (219-222), gas foaming (16,223), electrospinning (134,224,225), solvent casting (16,226) and phase separation (16). Rapid prototyping methods include selective laser sintering (227-229), SLA (229,230), fused deposition modeling (229,231), solvent-based extrusion (232,233) and bioprinting (14,233-235). Establishing standardized protocols for BTE scaffolds is key to ensuring the quality, safety and efficacy of TE medical products. These standards are governed by the American Society for Testing and Materials International (236,237), International Organization for Standardization (238), national standardization agencies and emerging halal certification systems.

5. Scaffold assessment using OOAC

OOAC technology has made notable advancements, revolutionizing drug testing and pathology research. This innovative approach integrates microfluidic systems to replicate the complex physiological conditions of human organs, offering improvement over traditional 2D cell cultures. By mimicking intricate organ functions, OOAC technology provides a more precise and comprehensive platform for investigating cell interactions, drug response and disease modeling (239,240). It effectively bridges the gap between in vitro and in vivo research by establishing a controlled microenvironment for more accurate cell culture studies and system analysis (241). Moreover, the development of OOAC is guided by the replace, reduce and refine (3R) animal testing principle and is supported by regulatory bodies such as the European Medicines Agency and US FDA, both of which actively promote preclinical models aligned with this ethical framework (242,243).

To replicate tissue structure and functions, OOAC technology combines microengineering with TE techniques. Essentially, it constitutes a small-scale fluidic system comprising human-derived cells and physicochemical microenvironments. OOAC platforms typically include key components such as microarchitecture chips, biological elements, biomaterials, physicochemical stimulation, sensors or monitoring devices, membranes and microfluidic technology (240,244,245). The fabrication of OOAC devices often uses soft lithography, a method employing polydimethylsiloxane (246-249). Commonly used in microelectronics, soft lithography involves two primary steps: Photolithography process to produce a stamp, followed by a molding procedure (250). This process starts with a mold, typically composed of photo-resistant silicon, designed to mirror the inverse of the desired channel layout. The mold is filled with material, shaped into the desired chip form and cross-linked. Soft lithography enables the production of multilayer microfluidic devices with flexible microstructures, facilitating rapid prototyping of micro- and nanostructures with specific channel patterns. Following cooling and separation, the resulting block can be sealed either reversibly or irreversibly (251,252). An alternative method for constructing an OOAC device involves using 3D printing technology, specifically light-assisted additive manufacturing, also known as vat photopolymerization, combined with a dynamic photomask (253,254).

The development of OOAC devices requires consideration of several critical factors, including geometry, dimension, channel shape and the biological context (240). The number and configuration of channels within the microfluidic chip (single, double or multiple channels arranged in parallel or sandwich configurations) are associated with the geometry parameters (240,255). Double-channel designs, typically connected by a porous membrane, are commonly employed in various applications such as modelling interface or biological barrier (256,257), co-culturing (258), disease modeling (259,260) and drug evaluation (261) These chips typically have two inlets and outlets to regulate the flow of working fluids or biological materials, such as protein, cells or drugs, in and out of the system (262,263). Microfluidic chips with this configuration are frequently used to model the blood-brain barrier (BBB), intestine and lungs (26,28,264-265). The chip dimensions are typically on the centimeter scale, with channels ranging from millimeters to submicron sizes. The channels may have circular or rectangular shapes and are separated by a natural or synthetic polymeric membrane. This membrane is produced using conventional methods such as electrospinning and freeze-drying or advanced techniques such as 3D printing and SLA (266-270). The membrane serves a critical role in replicating permeability between two environments, enabling cell attachment, separation and communication between compartments (271-273).

A key parameter in replicating physiological conditions within OOAC systems is the biological context, which directly influences how accurately the microenvironment is reproduced to meet specific research goals. This parameter encompasses several key factors, including cell-ECM interaction, cell-cell interactions, biochemical environment regulation and biophysical environment control, such as flow dynamics, clog prevention and tissue mechanics. Each element is essential in ensuring that the system replicates in vivo conditions, thereby enhancing the relevance of experimental outcomes. Cell-ECM interactions are key to tissue development and homeostasis. In addition to providing structural support, ECM proteins play a key role in facilitating cell-matrix communication by modulating cell adhesion, migration and differentiation. These interactions direct cellular behavior and development by activating key intracellular signaling pathways, which are vital for processes such as tissue formation and remodeling. This is particularly beneficial for research investigating the impact of microenvironmental factors on cellular proliferation, differentiation and tissue-specific function, offering insights into how the ECM influences cell fate and performance. Cell-cell interactions are key for cell proliferation, morphogenesis and tissue repair. Achieving a complex, organized and synergistic assembly of diverse cell types is essential for generating structured tissue with functional intercellular interactions (253,271-277). Research on cell migration and cancer metastasis typically utilizes OOAC systems to investigate these parameters (253,274-277). OOAC systems can regulate the biochemical environment, based on the understanding that cellular behavior, such as proliferation, differentiation, migration and angiogenesis, is influenced by biochemical factors within the tissue microenvironment. These factors include concentration and oxygen gradient (278-280).

As part of biochemical and biophysical environment regulation, fluid flow serves a key role in mass transport, enabling the delivery of nutrients, dispersal of soluble substances and removal of cell waste throughout the human body. In OOAC systems, precise control of fluid flow is key for generating accurate results. The flow rate influences shear stress, polarity, concentration gradients of oxygen and nutrients, factors that affect cell adhesion, proliferation, morphology and protein expression (281,282). Two types of flow (steady and pulsatile) are employed in OOAC systems. Various methods are used to regulate flow, including pressure-driven methods, electroosmotic (electrokinetic flow), surface tension, shear flow, gravity, buoyancy, squeeze-film effects, laser-induced flow and biologically driven flow. The regulation of these flows is typically achieved using micropumps, such as peristaltic micropumps and syringe, electrokinetic and capillary pumps (253). In addition to fluid dynamics, it is vital to consider organ-specific chemical and mechanical stimuli, such as traction, compression, pressure and the exposure to drugs, toxins or radiation (247,283-287). A common challenge in these systems is clogging, which occurs due to the accumulation of particles that obstruct flow, especially in small-scale or highly sensitive systems. Preventive measures such as maintaining optimal pressure and temperature, controlling surface roughness and incorporating bubble traps are essential to prevent clogging. Although clogging can interfere with cell proliferation and compromise the functionality of organ-on-a-chip models, it may be advantageous to reinforce porous or fractured structures, or to facilitate the detection of specific biological components such as cells or protein (288-291).

Currently, there are two main approaches for conducting an OOAC experiment. The first involves constructing a custom-built OOAC system, while the second uses commercially available platforms. Self-built systems allow creation of highly specialized and complex models, making them valuable for investigating human disease mechanisms or other niche applications. However, these systems often lack standardization and may be less reliable (292,293). By contrast, commercially available OOAC platforms are gaining popularity in both academic and industrial settings due to their robustness and user-friendly design, especially in drug discovery and development. These commercial systems offer enhanced stability and operation simplicity, making them attractive to the pharmaceutical industry (292,294). At present, >15 companies manufacture commercially available OOAC devices and associated components (Table II) (292,294-327).

Table II

Comercially available OOACs.

Table II

Comercially available OOACs.

Company	Year of establishment	OOAC-associated organ/tissue model	Provision of OOAC-related experimental instruments	Customized model services	(Refs.)
4Dcell	2017	Neuron, heart, muscle	Yes	No	(295)
Aim Biotech	2012	BBB, islet, cartilage, microvasculature	Yes	No	(296)
Altis BioSystems	2015	Gut	Yes	Yes	(297)
ANANDA Devices	2015	Neuron	No	Yes	(298)
Alveolix	2019	Lung	Yes	Yes	(299)
Aracari Bio	2019	Brain/neurons, microvasculature	Yes	Yes	(300)
AxoSim	2014	Brain, nerve	No	Yes	(301)
Beonchip	2016	BBB, gut, epithelium	Yes	Yes	(302)
BiomimX	2017	Knee, lung, gut, heart, cartilage, tooth	Yes	Yes	(303)
Bi/ond	2017	Muscle, tumor	No	Yes	(304)
Cherry Biotech	2014	Endothelium, skin, BBB, liver	Yes	Yes	(305)
Chiron	2022	Cartilage, synovial membrane	No	Yes	(306)
CN-Bio	2009	Brain, liver, lung gut, kidney, heart, skin, multi-organ	Yes	Yes	(307)
DiNABIOS	2023	Heart	Yes	No	(308)
Dynamic42	2018	Lung, liver, gut, vasculature	Yes	Yes	(309)
Draper Laboratory	2019	Upper and lower airway, liver, gastrointestinal, BBB, vasculature, glomerulus, reproductive tract, skin	Yes	No	(310)
Elvesys	2011	Universal organ-chip (brain, kidney, gut, or skin)	Yes	Yes	(311)
Emulate	2014	Brain, colon, duodenum, kidney, liver, lung, bone marrow	Yes	Yes	(312)
Hesperos Inc.	2015	Liver, muscle, heart, brain gut, kidney, neuron, BBB, muscle, skin, bone marrow and multi-organ	Yes	No	(313)
Ibidi GmbH	2001	Brain/neurons, lung, liver, gut, kidney, islet, muscles, heart, skin, cartilage, bone marrow	Yes	No	(314)
InSphero	2009	Liver, islet, tumor	No	No	(315)
Jiksak Bioengineering	2017	Nerve	Yes	No	(316)
Kirkstall Ltd.	2006	Brain, liver, brain, heart, gut, lung	Yes	No	(317)
MesoBioTech SAS	2016	Brain, lung	Yes	No	(318)
MicroBrain BT	2014	Neuron	No	No	(319)
Mimetas	2013	BBB, gut, blood vessel, angiogenesis	Yes	No	(320)
NETRI	2018	Peripheral and central nervous system, skin	Yes	Yes	(321)
Numa Bioscience	2012	Liver, islet, microvasculature	Yes	No	(322)
Quris	2019	Patient-on-a-chip	No	No	(323)
REVIVO Biosystem	2019	Skin	Yes	No	(324)
SynVIVO	2015	BBB, lung, liver, tumor, microvasculature	Yes	No	(325)
TissUse GmbH	2010	BBB, bone marrow, hair follicle,lung, liver, testis, thyroid, bone, heart, endometrium, pancreas, vasculature, muscle, kidney, skin, gingiva, multi-organ	Yes	Yes	(326)
Xona Microfluidics	2008	Neuron	Yes	No	(327)

[i] BBB, blood-brain barrier.

According to previous studies (28,241,264,328-339), OOAC technology is primarily employed in fundamental research to replicate the physiological structure and functions of microenvironments. It has been used in disease and cancer modeling, drug development, toxicity evaluation and in studies exploring its manufacturing and assembly processes (241,328). To date, this bioengineering tool has been applied to study the functions of various organs, including the lung (329,330), brain (331), BBB (264,332), endometrium (333), liver (334), heart (335), kidney (336), bone marrow (337), intestine (28,338) and bone (339). Despite the potential of BTE to address bone-associated challenges, there remains a significant gap in OOAC research focusing on BTE scaffolds in medical and dental contexts, highlighting the need for further investigation. To address this gap, the present review provides a comprehensive overview of studies on scaffold fabrication and evaluation using microfluidic-based technology or OOAC devices, with a focus on their potential applications in BTE and bone repair and regeneration.

Several studies (340,341) have been conducted to evaluate scaffolds using OOAC or microfluidic-based devices. Ng et al (342) developed a 3D-printed micro-perfused culture device using SLA, embedded with a 3D fibrous scaffold to enhance biomimicry. This system supports the proliferation of Huh7.5 hepatocellular carcinoma cells within a perfused microenvironment and demonstrates adaptability for various cell lines or tissue types (340). Similarly, Han et al (341) developed a 3D-printed film for bone regeneration, evaluated within a scaffold-OAC system fabricated via negative replica molding. The device included a central circular area for scaffold placement, surrounded by a microfluidic channel, allowing observation of osteoblast MC3T3-E1 activity, such as migration, morphology and osteogenesis at the blood-scaffold interface. The scaffold-OAC platform has proven to be an effective tool for monitoring cellular responses and evaluating scaffold performance, with the potential to replace conventional in vivo and in vitro models (341).

Bahmaee et al (342) introduced an innovative microfluidic device designed to replicate bone conditions, incorporating a 3D scaffold within a silicone-based microfluidic unit. This configuration supports the proliferation and differentiation of human embryonic stem cell-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells under dynamic mechanical conditions. The aforementioned study demonstrated enhanced osteogenic differentiation and ECM formation compared with both static and continuous flow environments. This bone-OAC device presents an affordable, reproducible and scalable platform for studying bone biology and evaluating BTE scaffolds, with the potential to decrease dependence on animal models for preclinical testing (342). These findings illustrate diverse approaches to scaffold evaluation using OOAC systems, each tailored to specific research purposes, and highlight the importance of this technology in advancing BTE (Table III) (343-351).

Table III

Scaffold-associated microfluidic-based and OOAC devices.

Table III

Scaffold-associated microfluidic-based and OOAC devices.

First author/s, year	Type of BTE scaffold	Practical implication	(Refs.)
Ng et al, 2024	3D-printed micro-perfused culture	The study used a 3D fibrous scaffold integrated within a unified micro-perfused cell culture system to create a physiologically relevant microenvironment that supports the viability of Huh7.5 hepatocellular carcinoma cells. The device can be tailored to meet the microenviron-mental needs of different types of tissue, including bone	(340)
Han et al, 2023	Scaffold-OAC	The platform has been developed to evaluate MCTT3-E1 cellular activity at the blood-scaffold interphase. This may serve as a relevant in vitro alternative to traditional in vivo animal models, offering a valuable tool for the fundamental study of bone regeneration	(341)
Killinger et al, 2023	Bone-OAC	This platform was created, refined and characterized specifically to improve the dynamic cultivation and maturation of MC3T3-E1pre-osteoblasts in vitro. This system serves as a potent tool for investigating the pathophysiology of human bone in vitro, employing microfluidic technology and multi-spheroid array techniques to create more realistic and dynamic culture conditions	(343)
Scheinpflug et al, 2023	Bone formation MPS	The goal of this study was to create MPS for bone biology that allows for perfusion, more precise quantification and control over physicochemical parameters. This platform used primary human osteoblasts seeded onto type I collagen scaffolds and is a beneficial and promising alternative to animal testing and disease modeling	(344)
Nguyen et al, 2023	Sample analysis assay chip	Development of a prototype for non-disruptive fluid manipulation in gold standard testing of 3D printed TE scaffold in vivo. This enables more feasible real-time monitoring of biomaterials implanted in vivo and serves as a proof of concept for a versatile BTE platform that reduces animal use, lowers experimental costs, and provides real-time data	(345)
Salerno et al,2022	FSS bioreactor	This study investigated the biological effects of FSS on a 3D B-HA scaffold and its impact on osteoblast cells. The evaluation of the scaffold in this bioreactor demonstrated activity of MC3T3 cells may be affected by both the structure of the scaffold and the applied FSS within the bioreactor	(346)
López-Canosa et al, 2022	Microfluidic-based 3D model	Study assesses the impact of bioactive PLA + CaP electrospun composite on the recruitment of rat endothelial progenitor and bone marrow-derived rat mesenchymal stromal cells using a microfluidic-based 3D platform. This novel technique can assess the ability of bioactive scaffolds to stimulate vascularization and expedite the preclinical evaluation of biomaterials	(347)
Bahmaee et al, 2020	Osteogenesis-OAC	This study developed a microfluidic chip made of silicon and integrated with a 3D scaffold from polymerized high internal phase emulsion. The cellular activity and ECM production of hES-MPs is better than static condition, this platform has the potential to investigate bone, especially BTE scaffolds, and reduce animal requirements	(342)
Peticone et al, 2020	Microfluidic perfusion platform	Study investigates the efficacy of doped microspheres (TiO₂- and CoO-doped PG) in enhancing bone tissue engineering by using a microfluidic perfusion platform involving hMSCs. Proven, controlled perfusion conditions, minimal manual intervention and parameter optimization during cell culture could potentially scale up the device for BTE scaffold assessment	(348)
Lyu et al, 2020	Microfluidic chip	This study developed a three-layer structure scaffold from tendon and bone marrow-derived SCs cultured in a decellularized tendon scaffold. A tree-like flow pattern microfluidic chip was used to establish this gradient, guiding stem cell differentiation to promote tissue regeneration. The study presents a potentially effective TE method that could lead to improved tendon-to-bone healing	(349)
Goldman et al,.2016	Microfluidic osteochondral graft	The study developed tissue-engineered osteochondral units that closely replicate native cartilage and bone, using bovine MSCs embedded in an agarose scaffold. Key functional parameters can be quantitatively assessed through a microfluidic approach. Furthermore, it holds promise for BTE particularly in regenerative applications.	(350)
Jusoh et al, 2015	Microfluidic vascularized bone tissue model	Development of a microfluidic system that accurately mimics the physiological circumstances of bone tissue to study the process of bone angiogenesis. The incorporation o fhydroxya-patite nanoparticles enhance angiogenesis. This platform provides a methodology for studying intricate biological events and evaluating medication reactions and toxicity in bone tissue	(351)

[i] OOAC, organ-on-a-chip; BTE, bone tissue engineering; MPS, microphysiological system; FSS, flow-induced shear stress; B-HA, Hydroxyapatite with B position of carbonation; PLA, polylactic acid; hES-MP, human embryonic stem cell-derived mesenchymal progenitor; MSC, Mesenchymal stem cells.

In addition to Bahmaee et al (342), several other studies have emphasized the use of microfluidic technology for fabricating scaffolds intended for BTE applications: Parhizkar et al (352) explored the creation of complex multidimensional scaffolds by integrating biocompatible particles and fibers through T-junction microfluidics and electrohydrodynamic techniques. This device produced multifunctional bovine serum albumin scaffolds with controlled porosity, incorporating poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA), polymethysilsesquioxane (PMSQ) and collagen particles/fibers. The developed scaffolds exhibit potential applications across advanced fields, including biomedical applications such as bone regeneration, as well as in pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry (352). Further studies reinforce the ability of microfluidic systems to support the development of diverse scaffold types from various biomaterials (Table IV) (353-363).

Table IV

BTE scaffold fabrication using microfluidics technology.

Table IV

BTE scaffold fabrication using microfluidics technology.

First author/s, year	Type of device	Overview	(Refs.)
Rashidi et al, 2024	Calcium-free alginate-encapsulated MSC	Microfluidic system opens up the opportunity to precisely encapsulate cells onto particles while favoring cell retention on substrates, viability and proliferation upon transplantation, with good manufacturing practice requirements	(353)
An et al, 2023	Injectable and moldable hMSC-laden microgels	Microfluidic technique via phototriggered imine-crosslinking chemistry is a powerful tool for BTE design strategy that allows enhanced fabrication accuracy, accelerated gelation rate and improved network strength of the scaffold	(354)
Yang et al,2021	BMSC-laden collagen microbeads	Microfluidics technology through modular TE is a promising bio-fabrication technique for constructing engineered bone grafts. This strategy enables the creation of complex and patient-specific grafts by integrating tailored bioinks that contain living cells and biomaterials.	(355)
Rajabnejadkeleshteri et al, 2021	BMP-2-CD-loaded pectin microparticles	Encapsulating non-invasive bioimaging agents such as BMP-2-conjugated CDs onto a scaffold for bone regeneration made from natural polymer using microfluidic approach. This platform possesses potential in BTE	(356)
Qasim et al, 2020	Three-dimensional PLGA-TGF-β3 MPs/PCL nanohybrid scaffold	Microfluidic technology could be used to incorporate synthetic polymers and growth factors. This approach demonstrates a sustained release, improved loading efficacy and enhanced conjugation of growth factor within BTE scaffold for cartilage regeneration	(357)
Moradikhah et al, 2020	ALN-loaded chitosan NPs	Microfluidics devices serve as powerful tools for manipulation of liquid solutions in rage of nano-pico volumes to prepare monodispersed and homogenous NPs loaded with bisphosphonate as a promising treatment for osteoporosis	(358)
Hou et al, 2018	Injectable PVA microgels co-loaded with hMSCs and BMP-2	Cells and growth factor are co-loaded into polymer-based scaffolds via high-throughput microfluidic devices. This technique protects the stem cells from severe environmental stress and regulates cell differentiation inside precisely specified environment to facilitate bone regeneration	(359)
Lin et al, 2018	Sponge-like monodispersed PLGA/nano-MgO-alginate core-shell microsphere	Customized microfluidics can be engineered specifically to control delivery of ions for enhancing bone regeneration such as magnesium to local microenvironment. This approach influences bone cell activity, mineralization and osteogenic differentiation	(360)
Li et al, 2017	Biodegradable GelNB hydrogel	Microencapsulation of stem cells into microgel can be engineered through low-cost biocompatible microfluidic-processing conditions. Microfluidic devices can be made into highly cost-effective and user-friendly devices that enable a successful microencapsulation of TE scaffold	(361)
Angelozzi et al, 2015	Alginate/gelatin or alginate/urinary bladder matrix composite hydrogel	Microfluidic chip has the potential to be used for cellular embedding and biomineralization. This approach allows production of a complex microfiber made from cells and biomaterial with accurate manipulation of the size and shape of the microfibers	(362)
Ding et al, 2015	PCL/Na-alginate/rBMSC/BMP-2 nano-micro alternating multilayer scaffold	Microfluidic approach is beneficial to engineered complex microbeads encapsulated with cells and growth factors. Combined with continuous electrospinning process, this approach can produce controlled-multi layer BTE scaffold with osteogenic effect in vitro and bone formation capability in vivo	(363)

[i] BTE, bonetissueengineering; hMSC, Human mesenchymal stem cells; rBMSC, rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; BMP, Bone morphogenic protein; CD, Carbon dots; PLGA, Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid; MP, Macroparticles;ALN, Alendronate; NP, Nanoparticle; PVA, Polyvinyl alcohol; PCL, Polycaprolactone.

6. Future directions and challenges

OOAC platforms are transformative tools in biomedical research, offering precision in replicating human tissue and organ microenvironments (Figs. 5 and 6). These microfluidic systems enable the development of dynamic in vitro models that more accurately reflect in vivo physiology compared with traditional cell cultures or static assays. OOAC technology has potential across various applications, including disease modeling, cancer metastasis studies, drug toxicity screening and preclinical testing of BTE scaffolds. The integration of fluidic flow, multicellular architecture and biomimetic cues provides a foundation for evaluating regenerative strategies in both research and clinical contexts (Table V).

Figure 5

The implementation of Organ-on-a-Chip technology revolutionizes scaffold development in tissue engineering by significantly accelerating the screening and evaluation processes. BTE, bone tissue engineering; RCT, randomized controlled trial. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 6

Potential of organ-on-a-chip to advance synthetic extracellular matrix technology in BTE. BTE, bone tissue engineering. Created with BioRender.com.

Table V

Comparison of study platforms.

A strength of OOAC is its flexibility. The platform can accommodate a range of cell types, including primary human cells, immortalized cell lines and SCs. Oral-derived MSCs are particularly advantageous due to their ease of isolation and osteogenic potential, making them ideal for modeling dental and craniofacial bone tissue. Combining MSCs with OOAC platforms offers a promising strategy for testing scaffold performance, analyzing biomaterial behavior and simulating healing processes within complex tissue environments. These systems also facilitate comparative evaluation of biomaterials and BTE constructs under conditions that more closely mimic physiological conditions than conventional 2D or static cultures.

Furthermore, OOAC technology has the potential to streamline the drug and biomaterial development pipeline by decreasing reliance on animal models and accelerating proof-of-concept validation. By bridging the gap between preclinical studies and human trials, OOAC systems shorten therapeutic discovery timelines and reduce development cost. Their alignment with the 3R principle improves the ethical profile of research, establishing OOAC as a favorable alternative in translational science. OOAC may overcome the limitations of conventional models-due to its ability to emulate complex human physiology with high fidelity (31,328,364-370).

From a fabrication perspective, advances such as 3D printing and digital microfabrication have made it more feasible to develop OOAC devices in-house or acquire them from commercial sources (371-373). While self-assembled systems offer customization and design flexibility, commercial models include expert consultation and specialized configurations, making them more accessible to a wider research audience. The global OOAC market has experienced growth, surpassing $100 million in value as of 2020 and continuing to expand (374). As the field progresses, the synergy between OOAC platforms and emerging technologies, such as robotics, artificial intelligence and automated testing, will be vital for scaling applications.

Despite these advances, barriers remain. High setup costs, fabrication and automation complexity, validation, parallelization and lack of standardization hinder widespread adoption (375). Overcoming these challenges requires coordinated efforts across the research community. To promote broader acceptance and reproducibility of OOAC systems in BTE, regulatory protocols must evolve general guidelines to include well-defined standards. This includes developing standardized fabrication protocols, such as defining acceptable ranges for material properties (stiffness, porosity, fluid flow), and establishing preclinical evaluation standards that address metrics such as biocompatibility, barrier function, mechanical stress response and osteogenic performance. Collaboration with national regulatory authorities-including the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)-alongside engagement with international standard-setting organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and ASTM International, is essential to establish benchmark testing protocols, validation frameworks, and harmonized reporting standards that can accelerate the acceptance and integration of OOAC technology. Additionally, interlaboratory validation studies and shared databases may facilitate cross-platform comparability, enhancing reproducibility and trust in OOAC outcomes. These efforts are essential for integrating OOAC devices into clinical translation pipelines and positioning them as credible tools for regulatory approval and routine biomedical use. Addressing cost concerns through the development of reusable and sustainable materials for OOAC systems may enhance accessibility. Collectively, these steps will enhance the reproducibility, accessibility and translational capacity of this promising technology in BTE and beyond.

Personalized medicine, which emphasizes the importance of addressing individual variability in genetics, physiology, environment and lifestyle, recognizes that standardized treatments may not be universally effective and that personalized strategies can improve therapeutic outcomes (376). A key component in developing functional OOAC systems is the integration of sensing technology. These sensors monitor specific biomarkers, molecular signals or pathogens, making OOAC platforms well-suited to support precision medicine initiatives (377-379). Moreover, the incorporation of patient-derived cells into OOAC systems introduces a high degree of customization, accounting for genetic heterogeneity and individual biological responses (380). Assessing patient-specific variables, such as immune sensitivity to biomaterials, comorbidities or genetic disorders affecting scaffold performance, can be effectively achieved using OOAC models. These systems also enable the investigation of rare diseases, cancer progression or individual immune responses in the context of regenerative outcomes (381). As such, OOAC technology may become integral to personalized treatment development and clinical decision-making.

7. Conclusion

OOAC technology represents an innovative biomedical approach with potential to enhance BTE research, particularly in the evaluation of newly developed scaffolds, offering a more physiologically relevant, cost-effective, efficient and ethically acceptable alternative to conventional in vitro and animal models. By integrating microfluidics, advanced biomaterials and dynamic cell culture, OOAC systems replicate complex tissue environments, supporting more accurate preclinical testing in dentistry and regenerative medicine. The advancement of OOAC may accelerate clinical translation, enable personalized scaffold development and reduce reliance on animal testing in biomedical research.

The dual availability of self-assembled and commercially available OOAC systems further strengthens their applicability. However, widespread adoption requires addressing key challenges such as standardization, validation, the use of diverse cell types and the integration of multiple organ systems. Overcoming these obstacles may unlock the full potential of this transformative technology, facilitating a gradual shift away from animal studies and paving new paths for bone-related therapies in human healthcare.

Although the present review focused on English-language studies published within a defined time window, relevant insights may also exist outside this scope. Future research would benefit from broader inclusion criteria encompassing earlier and non-English publications to provide a more comprehensive and globally representative understanding of OOAC applications in BTE.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the PKPI-PMDSU program for facilitating the collaborative research between Universitas Gadjah Mada (Yogyakarta, Indonesia) and Fraunhofer IKTS (Dresden, Germany). The present research was carried out as part of the doctoral thesis work of MHS, supervised by IDA, RA, DI, and NB.

Funding

Funding: The present study was supported by the Directorate General of Higher Education, Research, and Technology, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia through the following grants: The Pendidikan Magister Menuju Doktor untuk Sarjana Unggul (PMDSU) Batch VI (grant nos. 008/E5/PG.02.00/PL.PMDSU/2024 and 2061/UN1/DITLIT/PT.01.03/2024) and the Enhancing International Publication/Peningkatan Kualitas Publikasi Internasional (PKPI-PMDSU) Program Batch II 2023 (grant nos. 2908/E4/DT.04.02/2023, 4034/E4/DT.04.02/2023, 4431/ E4/DT.04.02/2023, and contract number 165.30/E4.4/KU/2023).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

MHS, IDA and NB conceived the study. MHS and IDA designed the methodology. MHS and DB performed the literature review. MHS and IDA analyzed data, wrote the manuscript and constructed figures. IDA, DI, RA and NB edited the manuscript. IDA, RA, DI and NB supervised the study. Data authentication is not applicable. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1	Altyar AE, El-Sayed A, Abdeen A, Piscopo M, Mousa SA, Najda A and Abdel-Daim MM: Future regenerative medicine developments and their therapeutic applications. Biomed Pharmacother. 158(114131)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Mao AS and Mooney DJ: Regenerative medicine: Current therapies and future directions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 112:14452–14459. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Tatullo M, Zavan B and Piattelli A: Critical overview on regenerative medicine: New insights into the role of stem cells and innovative biomaterials. Int J Mol Sci. 24(7936)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Petrosyan A, Martins PN, Solez K, Uygun BE, Gorantla VS and Orlando G: Regenerative medicine applications: An overview of clinical trials. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 10(942750)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Vacanti JP, Otte JB and Wertheim JA: Introduction: Regenerative medicine and solid organ transplantation from a historical perspective. In: Orlando G, Lerut J, Soker S, Stratta RJ, (eds.). Regenerative Medicine Applications in Organ Transplantation, Boston, Academic Press, pp1-15, 2014.
6	Del Barrio Cortés E, Matutano Molina C, Rodríguez-Lorenzo L and Cubo-Mateo N: Generation of controlled micrometric fibers inside printed scaffolds using standard FDM 3D printers. Polymers (Basel). 15(96)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Socci MC, Rodríguez G, Oliva E, Fushimi S, Takabatake K, Nagatsuka H, Felice CJ and Rodríguez AP: Polymeric materials, advances and applications in tissue engineering: A review. Bioengineering (Basel). 10(218)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Ranjan VD, Zeng P, Li B and Zhang Y: In vitro cell culture in hollow microfibers with porous structures. Biomater Sci. 8:2175–2188. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Kim MS, Kim JH, Min BH, Chun HJ, Han DK and Lee HB: Polymeric scaffolds for regenerative medicine. Polym Rev. 51:23–52. 2011.
10	Froemel D and Meurer A: Congenital Bone Disorders. In: Rommens P, Hessmann M. (eds). Intramedullary Nailing. Springer, London, 2015.
11	Fassier A: Telescopic rodding in children: Technical progression from Dubow-bailey to Fassier-Duval™. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 107(102759)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Toosi S and Behravan J: Osteogenesis and bone remodeling: A focus on growth factors and bioactive peptides. Biofactors. 46:326–340. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Roseti L, Parisi V, Petretta M, Cavallo C, Desando G, Bartolotti I and Grigolo B: Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: State of the art and new perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 78:1246–1262. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Birkhold AI, Razi H, Weinkamer R, Duda GN, Checa S and Willie BM: Monitoring in vivo (re)modeling: A computational approach using 4D microCT data to quantify bone surface movements. Bone. 75:210–221. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Andreasen CM, Delaisse JM, van der Eerden BCJ, van Leeuwen JPTM, Ding M and Andersen TL: Understanding age-induced cortical porosity in women: Is a negative BMU balance in quiescent osteons a major contributor? Bone. 117:70–82. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Chocholata P, Kulda V and Babuska V: Fabrication of scaffolds for Bone-tissue regeneration. Materials (Basel). 12(568)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Shang F, Yu Y, Liu S, Ming L, Zhang Y, Zhou Z, Zhao J and Jin Y: Advancing application of mesenchymal stem Cell-based bone tissue regeneration. Bioact Mater. 6:666–683. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Pereira H, Cengiz IF, Maia FR, Bartolomeu F, Oliveira JM, Reis RL and Silva FS: Physicochemical properties and cytocompatibility assessment of non-degradable scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 112(103997)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Manzini BM, Machado LMR, Noritomi PY and da Silva JVL: Advances in Bone tissue engineering: A fundamental review. J Biosci. 46(17)2021.PubMed/NCBI
20	Thormann U, Ray S, Sommer U, ElKhassawna T, Rehling T, Hundgeburth M, Henß A, Rohnke M, Janek J, Lips KS, et al: Bone formation induced by strontium modified calcium phosphate cement in critical-size metaphyseal fracture defects in ovariectomized rats. Biomaterials. 34:8589–8598. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	O'Brien FJ: Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today. 14:88–95. 2011.
22	Rohman G, Langueh C, Ramtani S, Lataillade JJ, Lutomski D, Senni K and Changotade S: The use of Platelet-rich plasma to promote cell recruitment into Low-Molecular-Weight fucoidan-functionalized Poly(Ester-Urea-Urethane) scaffolds for soft-tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel). 11(1016)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Hunt JA, Chen R, van Veen T and Bryan N: Hydrogels for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J Mater Chem B. 2:5319–5338. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Koons GL, Diba M and Mikos AG: Materials design for bone-tissue engineering. Nat Rev Mater. 5:584–603. 2020.
25	Zhao X, Liu S, Yildirimer L, Zhao H, Ding R, Wang H, Cui W and Weitz D: Injectable stem Cell-laden photocrosslinkable microspheres fabricated using microfluidics for rapid generation of osteogenic tissue constructs. Adv Funct Mater. 26:2809–2819. 2016.
26	Wu Q, Liu J, Wang X, Feng L, Wu J, Zhu X, Wen W and Gong X: Organ-on-a-chip: Recent breakthroughs and future prospects. Biomed Eng Online. 19(9)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Kimura H, Sakai Y and Fujii T: Organ/body-on-a-chip based on microfluidic technology for drug discovery. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 33:43–48. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	Jalili-Firoozinezhad S, Gazzaniga FS, Calamari EL, Camacho DM, Fadel CW, Bein A, Swenor B, Nestor B, Cronce MJ, Tovaglieri A, et al: A complex human gut microbiome cultured in an anaerobic intestine-on-a-chip. Nat Biomed Eng. 3:520–531. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	Chramiec A, Teles D, Yeager K, Marturano-Kruik A, Pak J, Chen T, Hao L, Wang M, Lock R, Tavakol DN, et al: Integrated human organ-on-a-chip model for predictive studies of anti-tumor drug efficacy and cardiac safety. Lab Chip. 20:4357–4372. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Li Y, Liu Y, Hu C, Chang Q, Deng Q, Yang X and Wu Y: Study of the neurotoxicity of indoor airborne nanoparticles based on a 3D human blood-brain barrier chip. Environ Int. 143(105598)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Ma C, Peng Y, Li H and Chen W: Organ-on-a-Chip: A new paradigm for drug development. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 42:119–1133. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	Osório LA, Silva E and Mackay RE: A review of biomaterials and scaffold fabrication for organ-on-a-chip (OOAC) systems. Bioeng. 8(113)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Zamprogno P, Thoma G, Cencen V, Ferrari D, Putz B, Michler J, Fantner GE and Guenat OT: Mechanical properties of soft biological membranes for Organ-on-a-Chip assessed by bulge test and AFM. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 7:2990–2997. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Koyilot MC, Natarajan P, Hunt CR, Sivarajkumar S, Roy R, Joglekar S, Pandita S, Tong CW, Marakkar S, Subramanian L, et al: Breakthroughs and Applications of Organ-on-a-Chip technology. Cells. 11(1828)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
35	Kwon J and Cho H: Nanomechanical characterization of bone quality depending on tissue age via bimodal atomic force microscopy. Nanomanufacturing Metrol. 6:1–11. 2023.
36	Presbítero G, Gutiérrez D, Lemus-Martínez WR, Vilchez JF, García P and Arizmendi-Morquecho A: Assessment of quality in osteoporotic human trabecular bone and its relationship to mechanical properties. Appl Sci. 11:1–16. 2021.
37	Dec P, Modrzejewski A and Pawlik A: Existing and novel biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 24(529)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
38	Qasim M, Chae DS and Lee N: Advancements and frontiers in nano-based 3D and 4D scaffolds for bone and cartilage tissue engineering. Int J Nanomedicine. 14:4333–4351. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
39	Morgan EF, Unnikrisnan GU and Hussein AI: Bone mechanical properties in healthy and diseased states. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 20:119–143. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
40	Legrand E, Chappard D, Pascaretti C, Duquenne M, Krebs S, Rohmer V, Basle MF and Audran M: Trabecular bone microarchitecture, bone mineral density, and vertebral fractures in male osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 15:13–19. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
41	Van Der Linden JC, Verhaar JA and Weinans H: A three-dimensional simulation of age-related remodeling in trabecular bone. J Bone Miner Res. 16:688–696. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
42	Wang X, Xu S, Zhou S, Xu W, Leary M, Choong P, Qian M, Brandt M and Xie YM: Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: A review. Biomaterials. 83:127–141. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
43	Qu H, Fu H, Han Z and Sun Y: Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: A review. RSC Adv. 9:26252–26262. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
44	Choi K, Kuhn JL, Ciarelli MJ and Goldstein SA: The elastic moduli of human subchondral, trabecular, and cortical bone tissue and the size-dependency of cortical bone modulus. J Biomech. 23:1103–1113. 1990.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
45	Keaveny TM, Morgan EF, Niebur GL and Yeh OC: Biomechanics of trabecular bone. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 3:307–333. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
46	Rho JY, Ashman RB and Turner CH: Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: Ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech. 26:111–119. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
47	Rho JY, Kuhn-Spearing L and Zioupos P: Mechanical properties and the hierarchical structure of bone. Med Eng Phys. 20:92–102. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
48	Sharir A, Barak MM and Shahar R: Whole bone mechanics and mechanical testing. Vet J. 177:8–17. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
49	Zimmermann EA, Busse B and Ritchie RO: The fracture mechanics of human bone: Influence of disease and treatment. Bonekey Rep. 4(743)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
50	Takayanagi H: Osteoclast Biology and Bone Resorption. Primer on the Metabolic Bone Diseases and Disorders of Mineral Metabolism. 9th edition. Wiley, Hoboken, pp46-53, 2018.
51	Reznikov N, Shahar R and Weiner S: Bone hierarchical structure in three dimensions. Acta Biomater. 10:3815–3826. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
52	Alford AI, Kozloff KM and Hankenson KD: Extracellular matrix networks in bone remodeling. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 65:20–31. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
53	Mackie EJ, Ahmed YA, Tatarczuch L, Chen KS and Mirams M: Endochondral ossification: How cartilage is converted into bone in the developing skeleton. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 40:46–62. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
54	Oryan A, Monazzah S and Bigham-Sadegh A: Bone injury and fracture healing biology. Biomed Environ Sci. 28:57–71. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
55	Salgado AJ, Coutinho OP and Reis RL: Bone tissue engineering: State of the art and future trends. Macromol Biosci. 4:743–765. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
56	Florencio-Silva R, Sasso GRDS, Sasso-Cerri E, Simões MJ and Cerri PS: Biology of bone tissue: Structure, function, and factors that influence bone cells. Biomed Res Int. 2015(421746)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
57	Nakamura H: Morphology, function, and differentiation of bone cells. J Hard Tissue Biol. 16:15–22. 2007.
58	Capulli M, Paone R and Rucci N: Osteoblast and osteocyte: Games without frontiers. Arch Biochem Biophys. 561:3–12. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
59	Damoulis PD and Hauschka PV: Nitric oxide acts in conjunction with proinflammatory cytokines to promote cell death in osteoblasts. J Bone Miner Res. 12:412–422. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
60	Marks SCJ and Popoff SN: Bone cell biology: The regulation of development, structure, and function in the skeleton. Am J Anat. 183:1–44. 1988.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
61	Feng X and McDonald JM: Disorders of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Pathol. 6:121–45. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
62	Crockett JC, Mellis DJ, Scott DI and Helfrich MH: New knowledge on critical osteoclast formation and activation pathways from study of rare genetic diseases of osteoclasts: Focus on the RANK/RANKL axis. Osteoporos Int. 22:1–20. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
63	Su N, Yang J, Xie Y, Du X, Chen H, Zhou H and Chen L: Bone function, dysfunction and its role in diseases including critical illness. Int J Biol Sci. 15:776–787. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
64	Klein-Nulend J, Bacabac RG and Bakker AD: Mechanical loading and how it affects bone cells: The role of the osteocyte cytoskeleton in maintaining our skeleton. Eur Cell Mater. 24:278–2791. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
65	Dallas SL, Prideaux M and Bonewald LF: The osteocyte: An endocrine cell and more. Endocr Rev. 34:658–690. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
66	Bonewald LF: Osteocytes as dynamic multifunctional cells. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1116:281–290. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
67	Plotkin LI: Apoptotic osteocytes and the control of targeted bone resorption. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 12:121–126. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
68	Bellido T: Osteocyte-driven bone remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int. 94:25–34. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
69	Metzger CE, Burr DB and Allen MR: Anatomy and Structural. Considerations. In: Encyclopedia of Bone Biology. Zaidi M (ed). Academic Press, Oxford, pp218-232, 2020. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.62234-1.
70	Guo XE, Hu YJ and Dinescu AT: Bone Structure and Function. In: Encyclopedia of Bone Biolog. Zaidi M (ed). Academic Press, Oxford, 233-246, 2020. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.11551-X.
71	Aida N, Saito A and Azuma T: Current status of Next-Generation sequencing in bone genetic diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 24(13802)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
72	The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS). Muscle and Bone Diseases. Health Topics, 2023. Accessed on October 4, 2023. https://www.niams.nih.gov/health-topics/muscle-bone-diseases.
73	Kanis JA, Norton N, Harvey NC, Jacobson T, Johansson H, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Willers C and Borgström F: SCOPE 2021: A new scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos. 16(82)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
74	Gheita TA and Hammam N: Epidemiology and awareness of osteoporosis: A viewpoint from the Middle East and North Africa. Int J Clin Rheumtol. 13:134–147. 2018.
75	Salari N, Ghasemi H, Mohammadi L, Behzadi MH, Rabieenia E, Shohaimi S and Mohammadi M: The global prevalence of osteoporosis in the world: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 16(609)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
76	Gregson CL, Armstrong DJ, Bowden J, Cooper C, Edwards J, Gittoes NJL, Harvey N, Kanis J, Leyland S, Low R, et al: UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 17(58)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
77	Clynes MA, Harvey NC, Curtis EM, Fuggle NR, Dennison EM and Cooper C: The epidemiology of osteoporosis. Br Med Bull. 133:105–117. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
78	Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Smith E, Hill C, Bettampadi D, Mansournia MA, Hoy D, Ashrafi-Asgarabad A, Sepidarkish M, Almasi-Hashiani A, et al: Global, regional and national burden of osteoarthritis 1990-2017: A systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis. 79:819–828. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
79	Allen KD, Thoma LM and Golightly YM: Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 30:184–195. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
80	Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, Abbasi-Kangevari M, Abbastabar H, Abd-Allah F, Abdelalim A, et al: Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 396:1204–1222. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
81	Vina ER and Kwoh CK: Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Literature update. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 30:160–167. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
82	Allen KD and Golightly YM: State of the evidence. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 27:276–283. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
83	Callahan LF, Cleveland RJ, Allen KD and Golightly Y: Racial/Ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 47:1–20. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
84	Courties A, Kouki I, Soliman N, Mathiew S and Sellam J: Osteoarthritis year in review 2024: Epidemiology and therapy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 32:1397–1404. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
85	Yang C, Tian Y, Zhao F, Chen Z, Su P, Li Y and Qian A: Bone microenvironment and osteosarcoma metastasis. Int J Mol Sci. 21(6985)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
86	Botter SM, Neri D and Fuchs B: Recent advances in osteosarcoma. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 16:15–23. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
87	Cortini M, Avnet S and Baldini N: Mesenchymal stroma: Role in osteosarcoma progression. Cancer Lett. 405:90–99. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
88	Weiss A, Khoury JD, Hoffer FA, Wu J, Billups CA, Heck RK, Quintana J, Poe D, Rao BN and Daw NC: Telangiectatic osteosarcoma: The St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's experience. Cancer. 109:1627–1637. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
89	Whelan J, McTiernan A, Cooper N, Wong YK, Francis M, Vernon S and Strauss SJ: Incidence and survival of malignant bone sarcomas in England 1979-2007. Int J Cancer. 131:E508–E517. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
90	Mirabello L, Troisi RJ and Savage SA: Osteosarcoma incidence and survival rates from 1973 to 2004: Data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer. 115:1531–1543. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
91	Macedo F, Ladeira K, Pinho F, Saraiva N, Bonito N, Pinto L and Goncalves F: Bone metastases: An overview. Oncol Rev. 11(321)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
92	Sheng G, Gao Y, Yang Y and Wu H: Osteosarcoma and metastasis. Front Oncol. 11(780264)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
93	Urish KL and Cassat JE: Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis: Bone, bugs, and surgery. Infect Immun. 88:e00932–19. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
94	Metsemakers WJ, Smeets B, Nijs S and Hoekstra H: Infection after fracture fixation of the tibia: Analysis of healthcare utilization and related costs. Injury. 48:1204–1210. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
95	Peltola H and Pääkkönen M: Acute osteomyelitis in children. N Engl J Med. 370:352–360. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
96	Kremers HM, Nwojo ME, Ransom JE, Wood-Wentz CM, Melton LJ III and Huddleston PM III: Trends in the epidemiology of osteomyelitis: A population-based study, 1969 to 2009. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 97:837–845. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
97	Walter N, Bärtl S, Alt V and Rupp M: The epidemiology of osteomyelitis in children. Children (Basel). 8(1000)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
98	Walter N, Baertl S, Alt V and Rupp M: What is the burden of osteomyelitis in Germany? An analysis of inpatient data from 2008 through 2018. BMC Infect Dis. 21(550)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
99	The Lancet. Global Burden of Disease 2019: Periodontal diseases-Level 4 cause. Global Health Metrics, 3-4, 2019. Accessed on November 7, 2022. https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/periodontal-diseases-level-4-cause.
100	Ferrari AJ, Santomauro DF, Aali A, Abate YH, Abbafati C, Abbastabar H, ElHafeez SA, Abdelmasseh M, Abd-Elsalam S, Abdollahi A, et al: Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 403:2133–2161. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
101	Figueredo CA, Abdelhay N, Figueredo CM, Catunda R and Gibson MP: The impact of vaping on periodontitis: A systematic review. Clin Exp Dent Res. 7:376–384. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
102	Papapanou PN, Sanz M, Buduneli N, Dietrich T, Feres M, Fine DH, Flemmig TF, Garcia R, Giannobile WV, Graziani F, et al: Periodontitis: Consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World workshop on the classification of periodontal and Peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol. 45 (Suppl 20):S162–S170. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
103	Birkedal-Hansen H: Role of matrix metalloproteinases in human periodontal diseases. J Periodontol. 64:474–484. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
104	Mohanty R, Asopa SJ, Joseph MD, Singh B, Rajguru JP, Saidath K and Sharma U: Red complex: Polymicrobial conglomerate in oral flora: A review. J Family Med Prim Care. 8:3480–3486. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
105	Page RC, Offenbacher S, Schroeder HE, Seymour GJ and Kornman KS: Advances in the pathogenesis of periodontitis: Summary of developments, clinical implications and future directions. Periodontol. 14:216–248. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
106	Kwon TH, Lamster IB and Levin L: Current concepts in the management of periodontitis. Int Dent J. 71:462–476. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
107	Shin CS, Cabrera FJ, Lee R, Kim J, Ammassam Veettil R, Zaheer M, Adumbumkulath A, Mhatre K, Ajayan PM, Curley SA, et al: 3D-Bioprinted inflammation modulating polymer scaffolds for soft tissue repair. Adv Mater. 33(e2003778)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
108	Murphy MP, Koepke LS, Lopez MT, Tong X, Ambrosi TH, Gulati GS, Marecic O, Wang Y, Ransom RC, Hoover MY, et al: Articular cartilage regeneration by activated skeletal stem cells. Nat Med. 26:1583–1592. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
109	Hao Q, Wu Y, Wu Y, Wang P and Vadgama JV: Tumor-derived exosomes in Tumor-induced immune suppression. Int J Mol Sci. 23(1461)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
110	Bucher CH, Schlundt C, Wulsten D, Sass FA, Wendler S, Ellinghaus A, Thiele T, Seemann R, Willie BM, Volk HD, et al: Experience in the adaptive immunity impacts bone homeostasis, remodeling, and healing. Front Immunol. 10(797)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
111	Xiong Y, Mi BB, Lin Z, Hu YQ, Yu L, Zha KK, Panayi AC, Yu T, Chen L, Liu ZP, et al: The role of the immune microenvironment in bone, cartilage, and soft tissue regeneration: From mechanism to therapeutic opportunity. Mil Med Res. 9(65)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
112	Ye J, Xie C, Wang C, Huang J, Yin Z, Heng BC, Chen X and Shen W: Promoting musculoskeletal system soft tissue regeneration by biomaterial-mediated modulation of macrophage polarization. Bioact Mater. 6:4096–4109. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
113	Zhao T, Sun F, Liu J, Ding T, She J, Mao F, Xu W, Qian H and Yan Y: Emerging role of mesenchymal stem Cell-derived exosomes in regenerative medicine. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 14:482–494. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
114	Hao Z, Li H, Wang Y, Hu Y, Chen T, Zhang S, Guo X, Cai L and Li J: Supramolecular peptide nanofiber hydrogels for bone tissue engineering: From multihierarchical fabrications to comprehensive applications. Adv Sci (Weinh). 9(e2103820)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
115	Salhotra A, Shah HN, Levi B and Longaker MT: Mechanisms of bone development and repair. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 21:696–711. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
116	Andrew JG, Andrew SM, Freemont AJ and Marsh DR: Inflammatory cells in normal human fracture healing. Acta Orthop Scand. 65:462–466. 1994.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
117	Claes L, Recknagel S and Ignatius A: Fracture healing under healthy and inflammatory conditions. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 8:133–143. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
118	Bolander ME: Regulation of fracture repair by growth factors. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 200:165–1670. 1992.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
119	Croes M, Oner FC, Kruyt MC, Blokhuis TJ, Bastian O, Dhert WJA and Alblas J: Proinflammatory mediators enhance the osteogenesis of human mesenchymal stem cells after lineage commitment. PLoS One. 10(e0132781)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
120	Salazar VS, Gamer LW and Rosen V: BMP signalling in skeletal development, disease and repair. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 12:203–221. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
121	Ono T, Okamoto K, Nakashima T, Nitta T, Hori S, Iwakura Y and Takayanagi H: IL-17-producing γδ T cells enhance bone regeneration. Nat Commun. 7(10928)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
122	Bernhardsson M and Aspenberg P: Osteoblast precursors and inflammatory cells arrive simultaneously to sites of a Trabecular-bone injury. Acta Orthop. 89:457–461. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
123	Lu LY, Loi F, Nathan K, Lin TH, Pajarinen J, Gibon E, Nabeshima A, Cordova L, Jämsen E, Yao Z and Goodman SB: Pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages promote Osteogenesis by mesenchymal stem cells via the COX-2-prostaglandin E2 pathway. J Orthop Res. 35:2378–2385. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
124	Kusumbe AP, Ramasamy SK and Adams RH: Coupling of angiogenesis and osteogenesis by a specific vessel subtype in bone. Nature. 507:323–328. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
125	Goerke SM, Obermeyer J, Plaha J, Stark GB and Finkenzeller G: Endothelial progenitor cells from peripheral blood support bone regeneration by provoking an angiogenic response. Microvasc Res. 98:40–47. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
126	Langen UH, Pitulescu ME, Kim JM, Enriquez-Gasca R, Sivaraj KK, Kusumbe AP, Singh A, Di Russo J, Bixel MG, Zhou B, et al: Cell-matrix signals specify bone endothelial cells during developmental osteogenesis. Nat Cell Biol. 19:189–201. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
127	Ramasamy SK, Kusumbe AP, Wang L and Adams RH: Endothelial Notch activity promotes angiogenesis and osteogenesis in bone. Nature. 507:376–380. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
128	Jones RE, Salhotra A, Robertson KS, Ransom RC, Foster DS, Shah HN, Quarto N, Wan DC and Longaker MT: Skeletal stem Cell-schwann cell circuitry in mandibular repair. Cell Rep. 28:2757–2766.e5. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
129	Cao J, Zhang S, Gupta A, Du Z, Lei D, Wang L and Wang X: Sensory nerves affect bone regeneration in rabbit mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Int J Med Sci. 16:831–837. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
130	Wang L, Zhou S, Liu B, Lei D, Zhao Y, Lu C and Tan A: Locally applied nerve growth factor enhances bone consolidation in a rabbit model of mandibular distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res. 24:2238–2245. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
131	Vermeulen S, Tahmasebi Z and Habibovic P: Biomaterials Biomaterial-induced pathway modulation for bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 283(121431)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
132	Lancaster MA and Huch M: Disease modelling in human organoids. Dis Model Mech. 12(dmm039347)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
133	Clevers H: Modeling development and disease with organoids. Cell. 165:1586–1597. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
134	Yin X, Mead BE, Safaee H, Langer R, Karp JM and Levy O: Engineering stem cell organoids. Cell Stem Cell. 18:25–38. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
135	Zhao P, Gu H, Mi H, Rao C, Fu J and Lih-Sheng T: Fabrication of scaffolds in tissue engineering: A review. Front Mechanical Engineering. 13:107–119. 2018.
136	Groen N, Yuan H, Hebels DGAJ, Koçer G, Mbuyi F, LaPointe V, Truckenmüller R, van Blitterswijk CA, Habibović P and de Boer J: Linking the transcriptional landscape of bone induction to biomaterial design parameters. Adv Mater. 29(1603259)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
137	Jeong J, Kim JH, Shim JH, Hwang NS and Heo CY: Bioactive calcium phosphate materials and applications in bone regeneration. Biomater Res. 23(4)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
138	Galván-Chacón VP and Habibovic P: Deconvoluting the bioactivity of calcium Phosphate-based bone graft substitutes: Strategies to understand the role of individual material properties. Adv Healthc Mater. 6(1601478)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
139	Bohner M, Santoni BLG and Döbelin N: β-tricalcium phosphate for bone substitution: Synthesis and properties. Acta Biomater. 113:23–41. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
140	Schmidlin PR, Nicholls F, Kruse A, Zwahlen RA and Weber FE: Evaluation of moldable, in situ hardening calcium phosphate bone graft substitutes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 24:149–157. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
141	Kruse A, Jung RE, Nicholls F, Zwahlen RA, Hämmerle CHF and Weber FE: Bone regeneration in the presence of a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute material. Clin Oral Implants Res. 22:506–511. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
142	Roberts TT and Rosenbaum AJ: Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: The bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing. Organogenesis. 8:114–124. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
143	Cornell CN and Lane JM: Current understanding of osteoconduction in bone regeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 355 (355 Suppl):S267–S273. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
144	Weber FE: Reconsidering osteoconduction in the era of additive manufacturing. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 25:375–386. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
145	Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O and Ohman A: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Recons. 16:1–132. 1977.PubMed/NCBI
146	Albrektsson T and Johansson C: Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J. 10 (Suppl 2):S96–S101. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
147	Albrektsson T, Branemark P, Hansson H and Lindström J: Osseointegrated titanium implants: Requirements for ensuring a Long-lasting, Direct Bone-to-Implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 52:155–170. 1981.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
148	Brown TD: Techniques for mechanical stimulation of cells in vitro: A review. J Biomech. 33:3–14. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
149	Walker M, Rizzuto P, Godin M and Pelling AE: Structural and mechanical remodeling of the cytoskeleton maintains tensional homeostasis in 3D microtissues under acute dynamic stretch. Sci Rep. 10(7696)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
150	Zhang X, Wang X, Lee Y, Feng L, Wang B, Pan Q, Meng X, Cao H, Li L, Wang H, et al: Bioactive scaffold fabricated by 3D printing for enhancing osteoporotic bone regeneration. Bioengineering (Basel). 9(525, 525,)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
151	de Wildt BWM, Cramer EEA, de Silva LS, Ito K, Gawlitta D and Hofmann S: Evaluating Material-driven regeneration in a tissue engineered human in vitro bone defect model. Bone. 166(116597)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
152	Langer R and Vacanti JP: Tissue engineering. Science. 260:920–926. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
153	Koushik TM, Miller CM and Antunes E: Bone tissue engineering scaffolds: Function of Multi-material hierarchically structured scaffolds. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 12(e2202766)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
154	Abdelaziz AG, Nageh H, Abdo SM, Abdalla MS, Amer AA, Abdal-hay A and Barhoum A: A Review of 3D polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: Principles, fabrication techniques, immunomodulatory roles, and challenges. Bioengineering (Basel). 10(204)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
155	Filip N, Radu I, Veliceasa B, Filip C, Pertea M, Clim A, Pînzariu A, Drochioi LC, Hilitanu RL and Serban IL: Biomaterials in orthopedic devices: Current issues and future perspectives. Coatings. 12(1544)2022.
156	Atala A, Kurtis Kasper F and Mikos AG: Engineering complex tissues. Sci Transl Med. 4(60rv12)2012.
157	Bouet G, Marchat D, Cruel M, Malaval L and Vico L: In vitro Three-dimensional bone tissue models: From cells to controlled and dynamic environment. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 21:133–156. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
158	Hutmacher DW: Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials. 21:2529–2543. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
159	Dehghani F and Annabi N: Engineering porous scaffolds using Gas-based techniques. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 22:661–666. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
160	Hollister SJ: Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater. 4:518–524. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
161	Grafahrend D, Heffels KH, Beer MV, Gasteier P, Möller M, Boehm G, Dalton PD and Groll J: Degradable polyester scaffolds with controlled surface chemistry combining minimal protein adsorption with specific bioactivation. Nat Mater. 10:67–73. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
162	Chernozem RV, Guselnikova O, Surmeneva MA, Postnikov PS, Abalymov AA, Parakhonskiy BV, De Roo N, Depla D, Skirtach AG and Surmenev RA: Diazonium chemistry surface treatment of piezoelectric polyhydroxybutyrate scaffolds for enhanced osteoblastic cell growth. Appl Mater Today. 20(100758)2020.
163	Dave K and Gomes VG: Interactions at scaffold interfaces: Effect of surface chemistry, structural attributes and bioaffinity. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 105(110078)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
164	Suamte L, Tirkey A, Barman J and Jayasekhar Babu P: Various manufacturing methods and ideal properties of scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Smart Materials in Manufacturing. 1(100011)2023.
165	Amini AR, Laurencin CT and Nukavarapu SP: Bone tissue engineering: Recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 40:363–408. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
166	Gokce C, Gurcan C, Delogu LG and Yilmazer A: 2D materials for cardiac tissue repair and regeneration. Front Cardiovasc Med. 9:1–16. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
167	Gentile P, Chiono V, Carmagnola I and Hatton PV: An Overview of Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) Acid (PLGA)-based biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 15:3640–359. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
168	Williams DF: There is no such thing as a biocompatible material. Biomaterials. 35:10009–10014. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
169	Bian N, Chu C, Rung S, Huangphattarakul V, Man Y, Lin J and Hu C: Immunomodulatory biomaterials and emerging analytical techniques for probing the immune Micro-Environment. Tissue Eng Regen Med. 20:11–24. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
170	Hofmann S and Garcia-Fuentes M: Bioactive scaffolds for the controlled formation of complex skeletal tissues. In: Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering. Eberli D (ed). IntechOpen, Rijeka, pp18, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5772/22061.
171	Sultana N: Mechanical and biological properties of scaffold materials. Functional 3D Tissue Engineering Scaffolds, Materials, Technologies, and Applications, pp1-21, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100979-6.00001-X.
172	Zhang Y, Xu J, Ruan YC, Yu MK, O'Laughlin M, Wise H, Chen D, Tian L, Shi D, Wang J, et al: Implant-derived magnesium induces local neuronal production of CGRP to improve bone-fracture healing in rats. Nat Med. 22:1160–119. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
173	Eltom A, Zhong G and Muhammad A: Scaffold techniques and designs in tissue engineering functions and purposes: A review. Adv Materials Sci Engineering, Mar 7, 2019 doi: 10.1155/2019/3429527.
174	Yuan N, Rezzadeh KS and Lee JC: Biomimetic scaffolds for osteogenesis. Recept Clin Investig. 2(898)2015.PubMed/NCBI
175	Liu J, Chen G, Xu H, Hu K, Sun J, Liu M, Zhang F and Gu N: Pre-vascularization in fibrin Gel/PLGA microsphere scaffolds designed for bone regeneration. NPG Asia Mater. 10:827–839. 2018.
176	Iviglia G, Kargozar S and Baino F: Biomaterials, current strategies, and novel nano-technological approaches for periodontal regeneration. J Funct Biomater. 10(3)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
177	Nainar SM, Vignesh Vicki W, Begum S and Ansari MNM: A review on bioscaffolds for tissue engineering application. Scholars J Engineering Technol. 2:184–192. 2014.
178	Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N and Oreffo RO: Harnessing nanotopography and integrin-matrix interactions to influence stem cell fate. Nat Mater. 13:558–569. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
179	Huebsch N, Lippens E, Lee K, Mehta M, Koshy ST, Darnell MC, Desai RM, Madl CM, Xu M, Zhao X, et al: Matrix elasticity of void-forming hydrogels controls transplanted-stem-cell-mediated bone formation. Nat Mater. 14:1269–1277. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
180	Jiang S, Lyu C, Zhao P, Li W, Kong W, Huang C, Genin GM and Du Y: Cryoprotectant enables structural control of porous scaffolds for exploration of cellular mechano-responsiveness in 3D. Nat Commun. 10(3491)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
181	Lee SS, Du X, Kim and Ferguson SJ: Scaffolds for bone-tissue engineering. Matter. 5:2722–2759. 2022.
182	Zhao W, Jin X, Cong Y, Liu Y and Fu J: Degradable natural polymer hydrogels for articular cartilage tissue engineering. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 88:327–339. 2013.
183	Chanes-Cuevas OA, Perez-Soria A, Cruz-Maya I, Guarino V and Alvarez-Perez MA: Macro-, micro- and mesoporous materials for tissue engineering applications. AIMS Mater Sci. 5:1124–1140. 2018.
184	Silva R, Fabry B and Boccaccini AR: Fibrous protein-based hydrogels for cell encapsulation. Biomaterials. 35:6727–6738. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
185	Shirazi S, Ravindran S and Cooper LF: Topography-mediated immunomodulation in osseointegration; Ally or Enemy. Biomaterials. 291(121903)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
186	Mitra J, Tripathi G, Sharma A and Basu B: Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: Role of surface patterning on osteoblast response. RSC Adv. 3:11073–11094. 2013.
187	Wang JR, Ahmed SF, Gadegaard N, Meek RMD, Dalby MJ and Yarwood SJ: Nanotopology potentiates growth hormone signalling and osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells. Growth Horm IGF Res. 24:245–250. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
188	Cabezas MD, Meckes B, Mirkin CA and Mrksich M: Subcellular control over focal adhesion anisotropy, independent of cell morphology, dictates stem cell fate. ACS Nano. 13:11144–11152. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
189	Lam MT and Wu JC: Biomaterial applications in cardiovascular tissue repair and regeneration. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 10:1039–1049. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
190	Guggenbichler JP, Assadian O, Boeswald M and Kramer A: Incidence and clinical implication of nosocomial infections associated with implantable biomaterials-catheters, ventilator-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infections. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip. (6)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
191	The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Sterilization for Medical Devices, 2024. Accessed on June 8, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/sterilization-medical-devices.
192	Griffin M, Naderi N, Kalaskar DM, Malins E, Becer R, Thornton CA, Whitaker IS, Mosahebi A, Butler PEM and Seifalian AM: Evaluation of sterilisation techniques for regenerative medicine scaffolds fabricated with polyurethane nonbiodegradable and bioabsorbable nanocomposite materials. Int J Biomater. 2018(6565783)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
193	Kumar A and Jacob A: Techniques in scaffold fabrication process for tissue engineering applications: A review. J Appl Biol Biotechnol. 10:163–176. 2022.
194	Nikolova MP and Chavali MS: Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D scaffolds: A review. Bioact Mater. 4:271–292. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
195	Chan BP and Leong KW: Scaffolding in tissue engineering: General approaches and tissue-specific considerations. Eur Spine J. 17 (Suppl 4):S467–S479. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
196	Wei G and Ma PX: Structure and properties of nano-hydroxyapatite/polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 25:4749–4757. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
197	Shruti S, Salinas AJ, Lusvardi G, Malavasi G, Menabue L and Vallet-Regi M: Mesoporous bioactive scaffolds prepared with cerium-, gallium- and zinc-containing glasses. Acta Biomater. 9:4836–4844. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
198	Boyan BD, Hummert TW, Dean DD and Schwartz Z: Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. Biomaterials. 17:137–146. 1996.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
199	Le M, Wu BM and Dunn JCY: Effect of scaffold architecture and pore size on smooth muscle cell growth. J Biomed Mater Res A. 87A:1010–1016. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
200	Hulbert SF, Young FA, Mathews RS, Klawitter JJ, Talbert CD and Stelling FH: Potential of ceramic materials as permanently implantable skeletal prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 4:433–456. 1970.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
201	Rampichová M, Buzgo M, Chvojka J, Prosecká E, Kofronová O and Amler E: Cell penetration to nanofibrous scaffolds: Forcespinning^®, an alternative approach for fabricating 3D nanofibers. Cell Adh Migr. 8:36–41. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
202	Ren L, Pandit V, Elkin J, Denman T, Cooper JA and Kotha SP: Large-scale and highly efficient synthesis of micro- and nano-fibers with controlled fiber morphology by centrifugal jet spinning for tissue regeneration. Nanoscale. 5:2337–2345. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
203	Wang L, Shi J, Liu L, Secret E and Chen Y: Fabrication of polymer fiber scaffolds by centrifugal spinning for cell culture studies. Microelectron Eng. 88:1718–1721. 2011.
204	Loordhuswamy AM, Krishnaswamy VR, Korrapati PS, Thinakaran S and Rengaswami GD: Fabrication of highly aligned fibrous scaffolds for tissue regeneration by centrifugal spinning technology. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 42:799–807. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
205	Xu F, Weng B, Materon LA, Kuang A, Trujillo JA and Lozano K: Fabrication of cellulose fine fiber based membranes embedded with silver nanoparticles via Forcespinning. J Polymer Engineering. 36:269–278. 2016.
206	Melke J, Midha S, Ghosh S, Ito K and Hofmann S: Silk fibroin as biomaterial for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 31:1–16. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
207	Xia H, Chen Q, Fang Y, Liu D, Zhong D, Wu H, Xia Y, Yan Y, Tang W and Sun X: Directed neurite growth of rat dorsal root ganglion neurons and increased colocalization with Schwann cells on aligned poly(methyl methacrylate) electrospun nanofibers. Brain Res. 1565:18–27. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
208	Vasita R and Katti DS: Nanofibers and their applications in tissue engineering. Int J Nanomedicine. 1:15–30. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
209	Brannon-Peppas L: Recent advances on the use of biodegradable microparticles and nanoparticles in controlled drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 116:1–9. 1995.
210	Stephens D, Li L, Robinson D, Chen S, Chang HC, Liu RM, Tian Y, Ginsburg EJ, Gao X and Stultz T: Investigation of the in vitro release of gentamicin from a polyanhydride matrix. J Control Release. 63:305–317. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
211	Bergmann NM and Peppas NA: Molecularly imprinted polymers with specific recognition for macromolecules and proteins. Prog Polym Sci. 33:271–288. 2008.
212	Wang S, Chen X, Han X, Hong X, Li X, Zhang H, Li M, Wang Z and Zheng A: A Review of 3D printing technology in pharmaceutics: Technology and applications, now and future. Pharmaceutics. 15(416)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
213	Matai I, Kaur G, Seyedsalehi A, McClinton A and Laurencin CT: Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for tissue/organ regenerative engineering. Biomaterials. 226(119536)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
214	Sun W, Starly B, Daly AC, Burdick JA, Groll J, Skeldon G, Shu W, Sakai Y, Shinohara M, Nishikawa M, et al: The bioprinting roadmap. Biofabrication. 12(022002)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
215	Ahmad J, Garg A, Mustafa G, Mohammed AA and Ahmad MZ: 3D printing technology as a promising tool to design Nanomedicine-based solid dosage forms: Contemporary research and future scope. Pharmaceutics. 15(1448)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
216	Marzuka S and Umme Kulsum J: 3D printing: A new avenue in pharmaceuticals. World J Pharm Res. 5:1686–1701. 2016.
217	Samiei N: Recent trends on applications of 3D printing technology on the design and manufacture of pharmaceutical oral formulation: A mini review. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci. 9:1–12. 2020.
218	Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY, Chen C and Spence DM: Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences. Anal Chem. 86:3240–3253. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
219	Perez-Puyana V, Jiménez-Rosado M, Romero A and Guerrero A: Polymer-based scaffolds for Soft-tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel). 12(1566)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
220	Aranaz I, Gutiérrez MC, Ferrer ML and del Monte F: Preparation of chitosan nanocomposites with a macroporous structure by unidirectional freezing and subsequent Freeze-drying. Mar Drugs. 12:5619–5642. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
221	Sanz-Herrera JA, García-Aznar JM and Doblaré M: On scaffold designing for bone regeneration: A computational multiscale approach. Acta Biomater. 5:219–229. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
222	Venkatesan J, Bhatnagar I and Kim SK: Chitosan-alginate biocomposite containing fucoidan for bone tissue engineering. Mar Drugs. 12:300–316. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
223	Harris LD, Kim BS and Mooney DJ: Open pore biodegradable matrices formed with gas foaming. J Biomed Mater Sci. 42:396–402. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
224	Kopp A, Smeets R, Gosau M, Kröger N, Fuest S, Köpf M, Kruse M, Krieger J, Rutkowski R, Henningsen A and Burg S: Effect of process parameters on additive-free electrospinning of regenerated silk fibroin nonwovens. Bioact Mater. 5:241–252. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
225	Mabrouk M, Beherei HH and Das DB: Recent progress in the fabrication techniques of 3D scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 110(110716)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
226	Agrawal CM and Ray RB: Biodegradable polymeric scaffolds for musculoskeletal tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res. 55:141–150. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
227	Du Y, Liu H, Yang Q, Wang S, Wang J, Ma J, Noh I, Mikos AG and Zhang S: Selective laser sintering scaffold with hierarchical architecture and gradient composition for osteochondral repair in rabbits. Biomaterials. 137:37–48. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
228	Awad A, Fina F, Goyanes A, Gaisford S and Basit AW: 3D printing: Principles and pharmaceutical applications of selective laser sintering. Int J Pharm. 586(119594)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
229	Madrid APM, Vrech SM, Sanchez MA and Rodriguez AP: Advances in additive manufacturing for bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 100:631–644. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
230	Creff J, Courson R, Mangeat T, Foncy J, Souleille S, Thibault C, Besson A and Malaquin L: Fabrication of 3D scaffolds reproducing intestinal epithelium topography by High-resolution 3D stereolithography. Biomaterials. 221(119404)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
231	Melčová V, Svoradová K, Menčík P, Kontárová S, Rampichová M, Hedvičáková V, Sovková V, Přikryl R and Vojtová L: FDM 3D printed composites for bone tissue engineering based on plasticized Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)/poly(d,l-lactide) Blends. Polymers (Basel). 12(2806)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
232	Rey F, Barzaghini B, Nardini A, Bordoni M, Zuccotti GV, Cereda C, Raimondi MT and Carelli S: Advances in tissue engineering and innovative fabrication techniques for 3-D-Structures: Translational applications in neurodegenerative diseases. Cells. 9(1636)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
233	Yuan B, Zhou SY and Chen XS: Rapid prototyping technology and its application in bone tissue engineering. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 18:303–315. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
234	Murphy SV and Atala A: 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 32:773–785. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
235	Mao Q, Wang Y, Li Y, Juengpanich S, Li W, Chen M, Yin J, Fu J and Cai X: Fabrication of liver microtissue with liver decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) bioink by digital light processing (DLP) bioprinting. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 109(110625)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
236	Simon CG, Yaszemski MJ, Ratcliffe A, Tomlins P, Luginbuehl R and Tesk JA: ASTM international workshop on standards and measurements for tissue engineering scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 103:949–959. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
237	Pamies D, Ekert J, Zurich MG, Frey O, Werner S, Piergiovanni M, Freedman BS, Keong Teo AK, Erfurth H, Reyes DR, et al: Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility. Stem Cell Rep. 19:604–617. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
238	Allwardt V, Ainscough AJ, Viswanathan P, Sherrod SD, McLean JA, Haddrick M and Pensabene V: . Translational Roadmap for the Organs-on-a-Chip Industry toward Broad Adoption. Bioengineering. 7(112)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
239	Lyu Y: Organ-on-chip technology's development and usages: A comprehensive review. Theor Nat Sci 32: pp288-292, 2024. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-8818/32/20240886.
240	Morais AS, Mendes M, Cordeiro MA, Sousa JJ, Pais AC, Mihăilă SM and Vitorino C: Organ-on-a-Chip: Ubi sumus? Fundamentals and design aspects. Pharmaceutics. 16(615)2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
241	Syahruddin MH, Anggraeni R and Ana ID: A microfluidic organ-on-a-chip: Into the next decade of bone tissue engineering applied in dentistry. Future Sci OA. 9(FSO902)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
242	Europe Medicines Agency (EMA): EMA implements new measures to minimise animal testing during medicines development, 2021. Accessed on August 3, 2024. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-implements-new-measures-minimise-animal-testing-during-medicines-development.
243	Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Advancing Alternative Methods at FDA, 2023. Accessed on August 3, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/science-research/about-science-research-fda/advancing-alternative-methods-fda.
244	Cho S, Lee S and Ahn SI: Design and engineering of organ-on-a-chip. Biomed Eng Lett. 13:97–109. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
245	Mandenius CF: Conceptual design of Micro-Bioreactors and Organ-on-chips for studies of cell cultures. Bioengineering (Basel). 5(56)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
246	Torino S, Corrado B, Iodice M and Coppola G: PDMS-based microfluidic devices for cell culture. Inventions. 3:1–14. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
247	Sosa-Hernández JE, Villalba-Rodríguez AM, Romero-Castillo KD, Aguilar-Aguila-Isaías MA, García-Reyes IE, Hernández-Antonio A, Ahmed I, Sharma A, Parra-Saldívar R and Iqbal HMN: Organs-on-a-chip module: A review from the development and applications perspective. Micromachines (Basel). 9(536)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
248	Srinivasan A, Lopez-Ribot JL and Ramasubramanian AK: Microscale microbial culture. Future Microbiol. 10:143–146. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
249	Whitesides GM: The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature. 442:368–373. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
250	Mohanty S, Larsen LB, Trifol J, Szabo P, Burri HVR, Canali C, Dufva M, Emnéus J and Wolff A: Fabrication of scalable and structured tissue engineering scaffolds using water dissolvable sacrificial 3D printed moulds. Mater Sci Eng C. 55:569–578. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
251	Ahmed I, Iqbal HMN and Akram Z: Microfluidics engineering: Recent trends, valorization, and applications. Arab J Sci Eng. 43:23–32. 2018.
252	Xu Z, Gao Y, Hao Y, Li E, Wang Y, Zhang J, Wang W, Gao Z and Wang Q: Application of a microfluidic chip-based 3D co-culture to test drug sensitivity for individualized treatment of lung cancer. Biomaterials. 34:4109–4117. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
253	Singh G, Mishra A, Mathur A, Shastri S, Nizam A, Rizwan A, Dadial AS, Firdous A and Hassan H: Advancement of organ-on-chip towards next generation medical technology. Biosens Bioelectron X. 18(100480)2024.
254	Milton LA, Viglione MS, Ong LJY, Nordin GP and Toh YC: Vat photopolymerization 3D printed microfluidic devices for organ-on-a-chip applications. Lab Chip. 23:3537–3560. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
255	Tajeddin A and Mustafaoglu N: Design and fabrication of organ-on-chips: Promises and challenges. Micromachines (Basel). 12(1443)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
256	Walter FR, Valkai S, Kincses A, Petnehazi A, Czeller T, Veszelka S, Ormos P, Deli MA and Dér A: A versatile lab-on-a-chip tool for modeling biological barriers. Sens Actuators B Chem. 222:1209–1219. 2016.
257	França CM, Tahayeri A, Rodrigues NS, Ferdosian S, Puppin Rontani RM, Sereda G, Ferracane JL and Bertassoni LE: The tooth on-a-chip: A microphysiologic model system mimicking the biologic interface of the tooth with biomaterials. Lab Chip. 20:405–413. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
258	Shin W, Wu A, Massidda MW, Foster C, Thomas N, Lee DW, Koh H, Ju Y, Kim J and Kim HJ: A robust longitudinal co-culture of obligate anaerobic gut microbiome with human intestinal epithelium in an Anoxic-Oxic Interface-on-a-Chip. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 7(13)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
259	lebani R, Potla R, Soong M, Bai H, Izadifar Z, Jiang A, Travis RN, Belgur C, Dinis A, Cartwright MJ, et al: Modeling pulmonary cystic fibrosis in a human lung airway-on-a-chip. J Cyst Fibros. 21:606–615. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
260	Cao T, Shao C, Yu X, Xie R, Yang C, Sun Y, Yang S, He W, Xu Y, Fan Q and Ye F: Biomimetic Alveolus-on-a-Chip for SARS-COV-2 infection recapitulation. Research (Wash D C). 2022(9819154)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
261	Tan J, Zhu L, Shi J, Zhang J, Kuang J, Guo Q, Zhu X, Chen Y, Zhou C and Gao X: Evaluation of drug resistance for EGFR-TKIs in lung cancer via multicellular lung-on-a-chip. Eur J Pharm Sci. 199(106805)2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
262	Zakharova M, Palma Do Carmo MA, Van Der Helm MW, Le-The H, De Graaf MNS, Orlova V, van den Berg A, van der Meer AD, Broersen K and Segerink LI: Multiplexed blood-brain barrier organ-on-chip. Lab Chip. 20:3132–3143. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
263	Zheng F, Fu F, Cheng Y, Wang C, Zhao Y and Gu Z: Organ-on-a-Chip systems: Microengineering to biomimic living systems. Small. 12:2253–2282. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
264	Vatine GD, Barrile R, Workman MJ, Sances S, Barriga BK, Rahnama M, Barthakur S, Kasendra M, Lucchesi C, Kerns J, et al: Human iPSC-derived blood-brain barrier chips enable disease modeling and personalized medicine applications. Cell Stem Cell. 24:995–1005.e6. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
265	Park TE, Mustafaoglu N, Herland A, Hasselkus R, Mannix R, FitzGerald EA, Prantil-Baun R, Watters A, Henry O, Benz M, et al: Hypoxia-enhanced Blood-brain barrier chip recapitulates human barrier function and shuttling of drugs and antibodies. Nat Commun. 10(2621)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
266	Wu C, Luo Y, Cuniberti G, Xiao Y and Gelinsky M: Three-dimensional printing of hierarchical and tough mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds with a controllable pore architecture, excellent mechanical strength and mineralization ability. Acta Biomater. 7:2644–2650. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
267	Sachlos E, Czernuszka JT, Gogolewski S and Dalby M: Making tissue engineering scaffolds work. Review on the application ofsolid freeform fabrication technology to the production of tissue engineeringscaffolds. Eur Cells Mater. 5:29–40. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
268	Grenier J, Duval H, Barou F, Lv P, David B and Letourneur D: Mechanisms of pore formation in hydrogel scaffolds textured by freeze-drying. Acta Biomater. 94:195–203. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
269	Doshi J and Reneker DH: Electrospinning process and applications of electrospun fibers. Conf Rec Ind Appl Soc IEEE-IAS Annu Meet. 3:1698–1703. 1993.
270	Dhariwala B, Hunt E and Boland T: Rapid prototyping of Tissue-engineering constructs, using photopolymerizable hydrogels and stereolithography. Tissue Eng. 10:1316–1322. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
271	Lee DK, Kwon JY and Cho YH: Fabrication of microfluidic channels with various cross-sectional shapes using anisotropic etching of Si and self-alignment. Applied Physics A. 125(291)2019.
272	Kobayashi J, Kikuchi A, Aoyagi T and Okano T: Cell sheet tissue engineering: Cell sheet preparation, harvesting/manipulation, and transplantation. J Biomed Mater Res A. 107:955–967. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
273	Damiati S, Kompella UB, Damiati SA and Kodzius R: Microfluidic devices for drug delivery systems and drug screening. Genes (Basel). 9(103)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
274	Caballero D, Kaushik S, Correlo VM, Oliveira JM, Reis RL and Kundu SC: Organ-on-chip models of cancer metastasis for future personalized medicine: From chip to the patient. Biomaterials. 149:98–115. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
275	Imparato G, Urciuolo F and Netti PA: Organ on chip technology to model cancer growth and metastasis. Bioengineering (Basel). 9(28)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
276	Zuchowska A and Skorupska S: Multi-organ-on-chip approach in cancer research. Organs-on-a-Chip. 4(100014)2022.
277	Liu W, Song J, Du X, Zhou Y, Li Y, Li R, Lyu L, He Y, Hao J, Ben J, et al: AKR1B10 (Aldo-keto reductase family 1 B10) promotes brain metastasis of lung cancer cells in a multi-organ microfluidic chip model. Acta Biomater. 91:195–208. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
278	Kamei K, Mashimo Y, Koyama Y, Fockenberg C, Nakashima M, Nakajima M, Li J and Chen Y: 3D printing of soft lithography mold for rapid production of polydimethylsiloxane-based microfluidic devices for cell stimulation with concentration gradients. Biomed Microdevices. 17(36)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
279	Grant J, Lee E, Almeida M, Kim S, LoGrande N, Goyal G, Sesay AM, Breault DT, Prantil-Baun R and Ingber DE: Establishment of physiologically relevant oxygen gradients in microfluidic organ chips. Lab Chip. 22:1584–1593. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
280	Shin Y, Jeon JS, Han S, Jung GS, Shin S, Lee SH, Sudo R, Kamm RD and Chung S: In vitro 3D collective sprouting angiogenesis under orchestrated ANG-1 and VEGF gradients. Lab Chip. 11:2175–2181. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
281	Ribas J, Zhang YS, Pitrez PR, Leijten J, Miscuglio M, Rouwkema J, Dokmeci MR, Nissan X, Ferreira L and Khademhosseini A: Biomechanical Strain exacerbates inflammation on a Progeria-on-a-Chip model. Small. 13(1603737)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
282	Wang X, Phan DTT, Zhao D, George SC, Hughes CCW and Lee AP: An on-chip microfluidic pressure regulator that facilitates reproducible loading of cells and hydrogels into microphysiological system platforms. Lab Chip. 16:868–876. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
283	Feric NT, Pallotta I, Singh R, Bogdanowicz DR, Gustilo MM, Chaudhary KW, Willette RN, Chendrimada TP, Xu X, Graziano MP and Aschar-Sobbi R: Engineered cardiac tissues generated in the Biowire II: A platform for Human-based drug discovery. Toxicol Sci. 172:89–97. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
284	Lee D, Erickson A, You T, Dudley AT and Ryu S: Pneumatic microfluidic cell compression device for high-throughput study of chondrocyte mechanobiology. Lab Chip. 18:2077–2086. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
285	Occhetta P, Mainardi A, Votta E, Vallmajo-Martin Q, Ehrbar M, Martin I, Barbero A and Rasponi M: Hyperphysiological compression of articular cartilage induces an osteoarthritic phenotype in a cartilage-on-a-chip model. Nat Biomed Eng. 3:545–557. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
286	Rosalem GS, Torres LAG, de Las Casas EB, Mathias FAS, Ruiz JC and Carvalho MGR: Microfluidics and organ-on-a-chip technologies: A systematic review of the methods used to mimic bone marrow. PLoS One. 15(e0243840)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
287	Ashammakhi N, Nasiri R, De NR, Tebon P, Thakor J, Goudie M, Shamloo A, Martin MG and Khademhosseini A: Gut-on-a-chip: Current progress and future opportunities. Biomaterials. 255(120196)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
288	Pang L, Shen S, Ma C, Ma T, Zhang R, Tian C, Zhao L, Liu W and Wang J: Deformability and size-based cancer cell separation using an integrated microfluidic device. Analyst. 140:7335–7346. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
289	Dressaire E and Sauret A: Clogging of microfluidic systems. Soft Matter. 13:37–48. 2017.
290	van der Sman RGM: Simulations of confined suspension flow at multiple length scales. Soft Matter. 5:4376–4387. 2009.
291	He X, Wang B, Meng J, Zhang S and Wang S: How to prevent bubbles in microfluidic channels. Langmuir. 37:2187–2194. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
292	Busek M, Aizenshtadt A, Amirola-Martinez M, Delon L and Krauss S: Academic user view: Organ-on-a-Chip technology. Biosensors (Basel). 12(126)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
293	Li J, Liang W, Chen Z, Li X, Gu P, Liu A, Chen P, Li Q, Mei X, Yang J, et al: OOCDB: A comprehensive, systematic, and real-time organs-on-a-chip database. Genom Proteom Bioinform. 21:243–58. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
294	Mauriac H and Casquillas GV: Organ-on-chip companies developing innovative technologies. ELVESYS Microfluidic Innovation Centre. Accessed on August 7, 2024. https://www.elveflow.com/microfluidic-reviews/organs-on-chip-3d-cell-culture/organ-chip-companies/.
295	4Dcell: 4Dcell-Application. 4Dcell, Montreuil, 2024. https://www.4dcell.com/cell-types/#. Accessed August 7, 2024.
296	AIM Biotech: AIM Biotech-Our Products. https://aimbiotech.com/products/. Accessed August 6, 2024.
297	Altis Biosystems: Altis Biosystems-Products. Altis Biosystems, Inc., Durham NC, 2024. https://www.altisbiosystems.com/kits/. Accessed August 6, 2024.
298	ANANDA Devices: ANANDA Devices-Products. Ananda Devices, Quebec, 2024. https://www.anandadevices.com/en/products. Accessed August 7, 2024.
299	AlveoliX: AlveoliX-AXLung-on-Chip System. Alveolix AG, Bern, 2024. https://www.alveolix.com/axlung-on-chip-system/.
300	Aracari Biosciences: Aracari Biosciences-Services. Aracari Biosciences Inc., Irvine CA, 2024. Accessed https://aracaribio.com/services/. Accessed August 7, 2024, 2024.
301	AxoSim: AxoSim-Products. AxoSim, Inc., New Orleans, LA, 2024. https://axosim.com/products/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
302	Beonchip: Beonchip-Products. Beonchip, Zaragoza, 2024. https://beonchip.com/blog. Accessed August 7, 2024.
303	BiomimX: BiomimX-Applications. BiomimX, Milan, 2024. https://www.biomimx.com/our-pipeline/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
304	Bi/ond: Bi/ond-Applications. Bi/ond Solutions, Delft, 2024. https://www.gobiond.com/applications/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
305	Cherry Biotech: Cherry Biotech-CubiX Platform. Cherry Biotech, Montreuil, 2024. https://www.cherrybiotech.com/cubix/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
306	chiron: chiron-Our Science. https://www.chrn.co/science. Accessed August 7, 2024.
307	CN Bio: CN Bio-OOC Single-& Multi-Organ Models. CN Bio, Cambridge, 2024. https://cn-bio.com/organ-models/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
308	DiNABIOS: DiNABIOS-Our Technology. DiNABIOS AG, Zurich, 2024. https://dinabios.com/technology/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
309	Dynamic42: Dynamic42-Organ-on-chip models for research & development. Dynamic42 GmbH, Jena, 2024. https://dynamic42.com/. Accessed on August 7, 2024.
310	Draper Laboratory: Draper-PREDICT96. Draper Laboratory, Massachusetts, 2024. https://www.draper.com/explore-solutions/predict96. Accessed August 7, 2024.
311	Elvesys: Elveflow-Products & Applications. https://www.elveflow.com/microfluidic-products/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
312	Emulate Inc. Emulate-Organ-Chip Products & Services. n.d. https://emulatebio.com/products-services/. Accessed August 7, 2024).
313	Hesperos Inc: Hesperos-Services. Hesperos Inc., Orlando FL, 2024. https://hesperosinc.com/services/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
314	Ibidi: Ibidi-Products and Applications. https://ibidi.com/content/category/37-products. Accessed August 7, 2024.
315	InSphero: InSphero-Technology and solution. https://insphero.com/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
316	Jiksak Bioengineering: Jiksak Bioengineering-Nerve Organoid^TM. Jiksak Bioengineering, Kanagawa, 2024. https://www.jiksak.co.jp/technology/nerve-organoid. Accessed August 7, 2024.
317	Kirkstall Ltd: Kirkstall-Products and Applications. Kirkstall Ltd., York, 2024. https://kirkstall.com/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
318	MesoBioTech: MesoBioTech-Organ on-a-chip. https://mesobiotech.com/organ-chip/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
319	Microbrain Biotech: MICROBRAIN BT-Services. Mocrobrain Biotech, Marly-le-Roi, 2024. https://www.microbrainbiotech.io/our-services. Accessed August 7, 2024.
320	Mimetas: Mimetas-OrganoReady^®. Mimetas, Oegstgeest, 2024. https://www.mimetas.com/en/organoready/. Accessed on August 7, 2024.
321	NETRI: NETRI-NeuroFluidics Cultures. NETRI, Lyon, 2025. https://netri.com/netri-products/neurofluidics-cultures/. Accessed on August 7, 2024.
322	Numa Bioscience: NumaBio-NuVivo^TM organ chips. Numa Bioscience, Bothell, 2025. https://www.numabio.com/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
323	Quris-AI: Quris-AI-Patients-on-a-Chip. https://www.quris.ai/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
324	REVIVO Biosystems: REVIVO Biosystems-Products. REVIVO Biosystems, Singapore, 2024. https://www.revivobio.com/products. Accessed August 7, 2024.
325	SynVivo: SynVivo-Products. SynVivo, Huntsville, 2024. https://www.synvivobio.com/products/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
326	TissUse GmbH: TissUse-HUMIMIC Products and Services. TissUse GmbH, Berlin, 2024. Accessed on August 7, 2024. https://www.tissuse.com/en/services/.
327	Xona Microfluidics: Xona Microfluidics-XONACHIPS^®. Xona Microfluidics, North Carolina, 2025. https://xonamicrofluidics.com/xonachips/. Accessed August 7, 2024.
328	Ching T, Toh YC, Hashimoto M and Zhang YSL: Bridging the academia-to-industry gap: Organ-on-a-chip platforms for safety and toxicology assessment. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 42:715–728. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
329	Sevinc Ozdemir N, Belyaev D, Castro MN, Balakin S, Opitz J, Wihadmadyatami H, Anggraeni R, Yucel D, Kenar H, Beshchasna N, et al: Advances in in vitro blood-Air barrier models and the use of nanoparticles in COVID-19 research. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 30:82–96. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
330	Dasgupta Q, Jiang A, Wen AM, Mannix RJ, Man Y, Hall S, Javorsky E and Ingber DE: A human lung alveolus-on-a-chip model of acute radiation-induced lung injury. Nat Commun. 14(6506)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
331	Pediaditakis I, Kodella KR, Manatakis DV, Le CY, Hinojosa CD, Tien-Street W, Manolakos ES, Vekrellis K, Hamilton GA, Ewart L, et al: Modeling alpha-synuclein pathology in a human brain-chip to assess blood-brain barrier disruption. NatCommun. 12(5907)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
332	Campisi M, Shin Y, Osaki T, Hajal C, Chiono V and Kamm RD: 3D self-organized microvascular model of the human blood-brain barrier with endothelial cells, pericytes and astrocytes. Biomaterials. 180:117–129. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
333	Ahn J, Yoon MJ, Hong SH, Cha H, Lee D, Koo HS, Ko JE, Lee J, Oh S, Jeon NL and Kang YJ: Three-dimensional microengineered vascularised endometrium-on-a-chip. Hum Reprod. 36:2720–2731. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
334	Xie X, Maharjan S, Kelly C, Liu T, Lang RJ, Alperin R, Sebastian S, Bonilla D, Gandolfo S, Boukataya Y, et al: Customizable Microfluidic Origami Liver-on-a-Chip (oLOC). Adv Mater Technol. 7(2100677)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
335	Zhang YS, Arneri A, Bersini S, Shin SR, Zhu K, Goli-Malekabadi Z, Aleman J, Colosi C, Busignani F, Dell'Erba V, et al: Bioprinting 3D microfibrous scaffolds for engineering endothelialized myocardium and heart-on-a-chip. Biomaterials. 110:45–59. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
336	Nguyen VVT, Ye S, Gkouzioti V, van Wolferen ME, Yengej FY, Melkert D, Siti S, de Jong B, Besseling PJ, Spee B, et al: A human kidney and liver organoid-based multi-organ-on-a-chip model to study the therapeutic effects and biodistribution of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles. J Extracell Vesicles. 11(e12280)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
337	Glaser DE, Curtis MB, Sariano PA, Rollins ZA, Shergill BS, Anand A, Deely AM, Shirure VS, Anderson L, Lowen JM, et al: Organ-on-a-chip model of vascularized human bone marrow niches. Biomaterials. 280(121245)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
338	Shim KY, Lee D, Han J, Nguyen NT, Park S and Sung JH: Microfluidic gut-on-a-chip with three-dimensional villi structure. Biomed Microdevices. 19(37)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
339	Mansoorifar A, Gordon R, Bergan RC and Bertassoni LE: Bone-on-a-Chip: Microfluidic technologies and microphysiologic models of bone tissue. Adv Funct Mater. 31(2006796)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
340	Ng FL, Cen Z, Toh YC and Tan LP: A 3D-printed micro-perfused culture device with embedded 3D fibrous scaffold for enhanced biomimicry. Int J Bioprint. 10:143–159. 2023.
341	Han J, Park S, Kim JE, Park B, Hong Y, Lim JW, Jeong S, Son H, Kim HB, Seonwoo H, et al: Development of a Scaffold-on-a-Chip platform to evaluate cell infiltration and osteogenesis on the 3D-Printed scaffold for bone regeneration. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 9:968–977. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
342	Bahmaee H, Owen R, Boyle L, Perrault CM, Garcia-Granada AA, Reilly GC and Claeyssens F: Design and evaluation of an Osteogenesis-on-a-Chip microfluidic device incorporating 3D cell culture. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 8(557111)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
343	Killinger M, Kratochvilová A, Reihs EI, Matalová E, Klepárník K and Rothbauer M: Microfluidic device for enhancement and analysis of osteoblast differentiation in three-dimensional cell cultures. J Biol Eng. 17(77)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
344	Scheinpflug J, Höfer CT, Schmerbeck SS, Steinfath M, Doka J, Tesfahunegn YA, Violet N, Renko K, Gulich K, John T, et al: A microphysiological system for studying human bone biology under simultaneous control of oxygen tension and mechanical loading. Lab Chip. 23:3405–3423. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
345	Nguyen M, Tong A, Volosov M, Madhavarapu S, Freeman J and Voronov R: Addressable microfluidics technology for non-sacrificial analysis of biomaterial implants in vivo. Biomicrofluidics. 17(024103)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
346	Salerno E, Orlandi G, Ongaro C, D'Adamo A, Ruffini A, Carnevale G, Zardin B, Bertacchini J and Angeli D: Liquid flow in scaffold derived from natural source: Experimental observations and biological outcome. Regen Biomater. 9(rbac034)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
347	López-Canosa A, Pérez-Amodio S, Engel E and Castaño O: Microfluidic 3D platform to evaluate endothelial progenitor cell recruitment by bioactive materials. Acta Biomater. 151:264–277. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
348	Peticone C, Thompson DDS, Dimov N, Jevans B, Glass N, Micheletti M, Knowles JC, Kim HW, Cooper-White JJ and Wall IB: Characterisation of osteogenic and vascular responses of hMSCs to Ti-Co doped phosphate glass microspheres using a microfluidic perfusion platform. J Tissue Eng. 11(2041731420954712)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
349	Lyu J, Chen L, Zhang J, Kang X, Wang Y, Wu W, Tang H, Wu J, He Z and Tang K: A microfluidics-derived growth factor gradient in a scaffold regulates stem cell activities for tendon-To-bone interface healing. Biomater Sci. 8:3649–3663. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
350	Goldman SM and Barabino GA: Spatial engineering of osteochondral tissue constructs through microfluidically directed differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Biores Open Access. 5:109–117. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
351	Jusoh N, Oh S, Kim S, Kim J and Jeon NL: Microfluidic vascularized bone tissue model with hydroxyapatite-incorporated extracellular matrix. Lab Chip. 15:3984–3988. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
352	Parhizkar M, Sofokleous P, Stride E and Edirisinghe M: Novel preparation of controlled porosity particle/fibre loaded scaffolds using a hybrid micro-fluidic and electrohydrodynamic technique. Biofabrication. 6(045010)2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
353	Rashidi N, Slater A, Peregrino G and Santin M: A novel, microfluidic high-throughput single-cell encapsulation of human bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells. J Mater Sci, Mater Med. 35(19)2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
354	An C, Zhou R, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Liu W, Liu J, Bao B, Sun K, Ren C, Zhang Y, et al: Microfluidic-templated cell-laden microgels fabricated using phototriggered imine-crosslinking as injectable and adaptable granular gels for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 157:91–107. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
355	Yang G, Mahadik B, Choi JY, Yu JR, Mollot T, Jiang B, He X and Fisher JP: Fabrication of centimeter-sized 3D constructs with patterned endothelial cells through assembly of cell-laden microbeads as a potential bone graft. Acta Biomater. 121:204–213. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
356	Rajabnejadkeleshteri A, Basiri H, Mohseni SS, Farokhi M, Mehrizi AA and Moztarzadeh F: Preparation of microfluidic-based pectin microparticles loaded carbon dots conjugated with BMP-2 embedded in gelatin-elastin-hyaluronic acid hydrogel scaffold for bone tissue engineering application. Int J Biol Macromol. 184:29–41. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
357	Qasim M, Le NXT, Nguyen TPT, Chae DS, Park SJ and Lee NY: Nanohybrid biodegradable scaffolds for TGF-β3 release for the chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Pharm. 581(119248)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
358	Moradikhah F, Doosti-Telgerd M, Shabani I, Soheili S, Dolatyar B and Seyedjafari E: icrofluidic fabrication of alendronate-loaded chitosan nanoparticles for enhanced osteogenic differentiation of stem cells. Life Sci. 254(17768)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
359	Hou Y, Xie W, Achazi K, Cuellar-Camacho JL, Melzig MF, Chen W and Haag R: Injectable degradable PVA microgels prepared by microfluidic technology for controlled osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Acta Biomater. 77:28–37. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
360	Lin Z, Wu J, Qiao W, Zhao Y, Wong KHM, Chu PK, Bian L, Wu S, Zheng Y, Cheung KMC, et al: Precisely controlled delivery of magnesium ions thru sponge-like monodisperse PLGA/nano-MgO-alginate core-shell microsphere device to enable in-situ bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 174:1–16. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
361	Li F, Truong VX, Thissen H, Frith JE and Forsythe JS: Microfluidic encapsulation of human mesenchymal stem cells for articular cartilage tissue regeneration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 9:8589–8601. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
362	Angelozzi M, Miotto M, Penolazzi L, Mazzitelli S, Keane T, Badylak SF, Piva R and Nastruzzi C: Composite ECM-alginate microfibers produced by microfluidics as scaffolds with biomineralization potential. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 56:141–153. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
363	Ding S, Li L, Liu X, Yang G, Zhou G and Zhou S: A nano-micro alternating multilayer scaffold loading with rBMSCs and BMP-2 for bone tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 133:286–295. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
364	Blow N: Microfluidics: In search of a killer application. Nat Methods. 4:665–670. 2007.
365	Sackmann EK, Fulton AL and Beebe DJ: The present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research. Nature. 507:181–189. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
366	Picollet-D'hahan N, Zuchowska A, Lemeunier I and Le Gac S: Multiorgan-on-a-Chip: A systemic approach to model and decipher Inter-organ communication. Trends Biotechnol. 39:788–810. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
367	Spagnuolo G, Codispoti B, Marrelli M, Rengo C, Rengo S and Tatullo M: Commitment of oral-derived stem cells in dental and maxillofacial applications. Dent J (Basel). 6(72)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
368	Liu J, Yu F, Sun Y, Jiang B, Zhang W, Yang J, Xu GT, Liang A and Liu S: oncise reviews: Characteristics and potential applications of human dental tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells. 33:627–638. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
369	Nielsen AV, Beauchamp MJ, Nordin GP and Woolley AT: 3D printed microfluidics. Annu Rev Anal Chem (Palo Alto Calif). 13:45–65. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
370	Sooriyaarachchi D, Zhou Y, Maharubin S and Tan GZ: Microtube-embedded microfluidic devices for potential applications in blood brain barrier research. Procedia Manuf. 48:294–301. 2020.
371	Zhou Y: The recent development and applications of fluidic channels by 3D printing. J Biomed Sci. (24)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
372	Moore S: Current Global Market of Organ-on-a-Chip, 2023. https://www.azolifesciences.com/article/Global-Market-Overview-Organ-on-a-Chip.aspx (accessed August 8, 2024).
373	Singh D, Mathur A, Arora S, Roy S and Mahindroo N: Journey of organ on a chip technology and its role in future healthcare scenario. Appl Surf Sci Adv. 9(100246)2022.
374	Franzen N, van Harten WH, Retèl VP, Loskill P, van den Eijnden-van Raaij J and IJzerman M: Impact of organ-on-a-chip technology on pharmaceutical R&D costs. Drug Discov Today. 24:1720–1724. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
375	Hubrecht RC and Carter E: The 3Rs and humane experimental technique: Implementing change. Animals (Basel). 9(754)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
376	Goetz LH and Schork NJ: Personalized medicine: Motivation, challenges, and progress. Fertil Steril. 109:952–963. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
377	Syama S and Mohanan PV: Microfluidic based human-on-a-chip: A revolutionary technology in scientific research. Trends Food Sci Technol. 110:711–728. 2021.
378	Srivastava SK, Foo GW, Aggarwal N and Chang MW: Organ-on-chip technology: Opportunities and challenges. Biotechnology Notes. 5:8–12. 2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
379	Haddrick M and Simpson PB: Organ-on-a-chip technology: Turning its potential for clinical benefit into reality. Drug Discov Today. 24:1217–1223. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
380	Riehl BD and Lim JY: Macro and microfluidic flows for skeletal regenerative medicine. Cells. 1:1225–1245. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
381	Abuwatfa WH, Pitt WG and Husseini GA: Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research. J Biomed Sci. 31(7)2024.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

Bone type	Porosity, %	Modulus, GPa		Strength, MPa		Poisson's Ratio	(Refs.)
Compact	3-5	Longitudinal	17.90±3.90	Tension	135.00±15.60	0.40±0.16	(41-49)
				Compression	205±17.30
		Transverse	10.10±2.49	Tension	53.00±10.70	0.62±0.26
				Compression	131.00±20.70
		Shear	3.30±0.40	Shear	65.00±4.00
Trabecular	>90	Vertebra	0.07±0.05	2.40±1.60			(41-49)
		Tibia	0.45±0.26	5.30±2.90
		Femur	0.44±0.27	6.80±4.80

		Organ-on-a-chip
Comparison	Conventional approaches in vitro and in vivo	Commercially available	Self-assembled
Advantages	Commonly used techniques include standard 2D monolayer cell cultures, 3D cell culture (spheroids and organoids) and animal model ; well-established; standardized, reliable, cost-efficient	Available in various organ models andas multiorgan-on-chip; provided by various companies; includes flow system services and customer support	Customized system; replicable and reliable; cost-efficient; suitable for the research aim
Disadvantages	Conducted mostly with animal-derived cells; potential discrepancies between preclinical findings and clinical outcomes; limited translatability to clinical settings; high cost; ethical issues for animal studies	High cost; difficult to customize; need more time for system delivery	Low validity; long development time; resource-intensive

Journals

International Journal of Molecular Medicine

International Journal of Oncology

Molecular Medicine Reports

Oncology Reports

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

Oncology Letters

Biomedical Reports

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

World Academy of Sciences Journal

International Journal of Functional Nutrition

International Journal of Epigenetics

Medicine International

Potential of organ‑on‑a‑chip in advancing synthetic extracellular matrix technology for bone tissue engineering in dentistry (Review)

This article is mentioned in:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Methods

Figure 1

3. Bone overview: Biology, common problems and the remodeling process

Figure 2

Table I

Table I

4. Scaffolds for BTE applications

Figure 3

Figure 4

5. Scaffold assessment using OOAC

Table II

Table II

Table III

Table III

Table IV

Table IV

6. Future directions and challenges

Figure 5

Figure 6

Table V

Table V

7. Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

Availability of data and materials

Authors' contributions

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Patient consent for publication

Competing interests

References

Related Articles