Current Concept of Bioactive Glass-loaded 3D-Printed Alginate-based Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications

Document Type : CURRENT CONCEPTS REVIEW

Authors

1 Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

10.22038/abjs.2026.95002.4274

Abstract

Bone is a mineralized connective tissue composed of osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts, and its integrity is essential for structural and physiological function. Defects arising from trauma, tumors, or developmental abnormalities often require surgical reconstruction to restore normal performance. Autografts and allografts have long served as standard treatments for bone repair, however, their usefulness is restricted by limited availability, donor‑site complications, and the potential transmission of underlying diseases. These challenges have accelerated interest in bone tissue engineering (BTE) as an alternative strategy capable of enhancing regeneration while reducing postoperative risks. Advances in three‑dimensional (3D) printing have introduced powerful technique for fabrication of scaffolds with precisely controlled architectures and tunable mechanical and biological characteristics. This technology enables the creation of porous constructs that mimic the structural complexity of native bone, supporting cell infiltration, nutrient transport, and vascularization. Effective scaffolds for BTE must demonstrate biocompatibility, biodegradability, appropriate strength and stiffness, and the ability to promote osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Among natural polymers, alginate (Alg) has become a prominent candidate due to its inherent biocompatibility, degradability, abundance, low cost, and non‑immunogenic nature. Its versatility makes it suitable for developing customized 3D‑printed scaffolds. Additionally, bioactive glasses (BGs) are widely incorporated into composite scaffolds because their composition closely resembles the mineral phase of bone. BGs significantly enhance osteoconductivity, support mineral deposition, and can improve the mechanical resilience of polymer-based constructs. This review highlights recent progress in 3D‑printed Alg-based scaffolds for BTE, emphasizing how advanced fabrication techniques and BGs incorporation contribute to improved biological performance and structural reinforcement.
        Level of evidence: III

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Jirofti N, Hashemi M, Moradi A, Kalalinia F. Fabrication and characterization of 3D printing biocompatible crocin-loaded chitosan/collagen/hydroxyapatite-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;237:123456. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126279.
  2. Rodan GA, Martin TJ. Therapeutic approaches to bone diseases. Science. 2000;289(5484):1508-1514. doi:10.1126/science.289.5484.1508.
  3. Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, et al. Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(4):509-516. doi:10.3171/2016.1.SPINE151005.
  4. Baldwin P, Li DJ, Auston DA, Mir HS, Yoon RS, Koval KJ. Autograft, allograft, and bone graft substitutes: clinical evidence and indications for use in the setting of orthopaedic trauma surgery. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(4):203-213. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420.
  5. Betz RR. Limitations of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions. Orthopedics. 2002;25(5):S561-S570. doi:10.3928/0147-7447-20020502-04.
  6. Sohn HS, Oh JK. Review of bone graft and bone substitutes with an emphasis on fracture surgeries. Biomater Res. 2019;23(1):1-7. doi:10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y.
  7. Burg KJ, Porter S, Kellam JF. Biomaterial developments for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2000;21(23):2347-2359. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00102-2.
  8. Guillotin B, Guillemot F. Cell patterning technologies for organotypic tissue fabrication. Trends Biotechnol. 2011;29(4):183-190. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.12.008.
  9. Askari M, Naniz MA, Kouhi M, Saberi A, Zolfagharian A, Bodaghi M. Recent progress in extrusion 3D bioprinting of hydrogel biomaterials for tissue regeneration: a comprehensive review with focus on advanced fabrication techniques. Biomater Sci. 2021;9(3):535-573. doi:10.1039/D0BM00973C.
  10. Visser J, Peters B, Burger TJ, et al. Biofabrication of multi-material anatomically shaped tissue constructs. Biofabrication. 2013;5(3):035007. doi:10.1088/1758-5082/5/3/035007.
  11. Russo R, Malinconico M, Santagata G. Effect of cross-linking with calcium ions on the physical properties of alginate films. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8(10):3193-3197. doi:10.1021/bm700565h.
  12. Cocchi M, Durante C, Lusvardi G, Malavasi G, Menabue L. Evaluation of the behaviour of fluorine-containing bioactive glasses: reactivity in a simulated body fluid solution assisted by multivariate data analysis. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2012;23:639-648. doi:10.1007/s10856-011-4543-9.
  13. Campana V, Milano G, Pagano E, et al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014;25:2445-2461. doi:10.1007/s10856-014-5240-2.
  14. Jahani A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Dehghani M, et al. Clinical outcomes of artificial meniscus scaffolds for partial meniscus injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Relat Res.2025;37(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s43019-025-00293-2.
  15. Ghasemi F, Jahani A, Moradi A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Jirofti N. Different modification methods of poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement for orthopedic surgery applications. Arch Bone Jt Surg.2023;11(8):485-492. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2023.71289.3330.
  16. Shuai F, Zhang Y, Yin Y, Zhao H, Han X. Fabrication of an injectable iron (III) crosslinked alginate-hyaluronic acid hydrogel with shear-thinning and antimicrobial activities. Carbohydr Polym.2021:260:117777. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.117777.
  17. Tajfiroozeh F, Moradi A, Shahidi F, et al. Fabrication and characterization of gallic-acid/nisin loaded electrospun core/shell chitosan/polyethylene oxide nanofiberous membranes with free radical scavenging capacity and antimicrobial activity for food packing applications. Food Biosci. 2023;53:102529. doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102529.
  18. Pietak AM, Reid JW, Stott MJ, Sayer M. Silicon substitution in the calcium phosphate bioceramics. Biomaterials. 2007;28(28):4023-4032. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.05.003.
  19. ElBatal H, Azooz M, Khalil E, Monem AS, Hamdy Y. Characterization of some bioglass–ceramics. Mater Chem Phys. 2003;80(3):599-609. doi:10.1016/S0254-0584(03)00082-8.
  20. Bertuola M, Aráoz B, Gilabert U, et al. Gelatin–alginate–hyaluronic acid inks for 3D printing: Effects of bioglass addition on printability, rheology and scaffold tensile modulus. J Mater Sci. 2021;56(27):15327-15343. doi:10.1007/s10853-021-06250-0.
  21. Luo G, Ma Y, Cui X, et al. 13-93 bioactive glass/alginate composite scaffolds 3D printed under mild conditions for bone regeneration. RSC Adv. 2017;7(20):11880-11889. doi:10.1039/C6RA27669E.
  22. Zhang J, Zhao S, Zhu M, et al. 3D-printed magnetic Fe 3 O 4/MBG/PCL composite scaffolds with multifunctionality of bone regeneration, local anticancer drug delivery and hyperthermia. J Mater Chem B. 2014;2(43):7583-7595. doi:10.1039/C4TB01063A.
  23. Zhao F, Zhang W, Fu X, Xie W, Chen X. Fabrication and characterization of bioactive glass/alginate composite scaffolds by a self-crosslinking processing for bone regeneration. RSC Adv. 2016;6(94):91201-91208. doi:10.1039/C6RA18309C.
  24. Billiet T, Gevaert E, De Schryver T, Cornelissen M, et al. The 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden tissue-engineered constructs with high cell viability. Biomaterials. 2014;35(1):49-62. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.09.078.
  25. Brady S, Fox E, Laffir F, et al. Surface modification of a novel glass to optimise strength and deliverability of an injectable alginate composite. J Mater Sci. 2017;52(24):13700-13710. doi:10.1007/s10853-017-1466-y.
  26. Jahani A, Nourbakhsh MS, Moradi A, Mohammadi M, Tayebi L. Incorporating insulin into alginate-chitosan 3D-printed scaffolds: A comprehensive study on structure, mechanics, and biocompatibility for cartilage tissue engineering. Carbohydr Polym Technol Appl. 2025;9:100696.
  27. Aliabadi MM, Jahani A, Moradi A, Jirofti N. Magnesium and Strontium‐Doped Bioglass Nanoparticles as a Novel Formulation: Advancing Osteoconductivity and Enhancing Bone Healing Potential. Small Sci.2026;6(4):e70263. doi: 10.1002/smsc.70263.
  28. Jahani A, Nakhaei M, Moradi A, et al. Exploring bioactive bone cement pastes: A promising solution for orthopedic surgeries. Biomater Adv.2025:177:214416. doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2025.214416.
  29. Jahani A, Nourbakhsh MS, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Mohammadi M, Yari D, Moradi A. Biomolecules-loading of 3D-printed alginate-based scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering applications: a review on current status and future prospective. Arch Bone Jt Surg.2024;12(2):92-101. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2023.73275.3396.
  30. Zhu Y, Kaskel S. Comparison of the in vitro bioactivity and drug release property of mesoporous bioactive glasses (MBGs) and bioactive glasses (BGs) scaffolds. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2009;118(1-3):176-182. doi:10.1016/j.micromeso.2008.08.046.
  31. Oliveira RL, Alves AP, Barbosa L, et al. 3D printing of bioactive glass S53P4/sodium alginate sintering-free scaffolds. Bioprinting. 2022;27:e00226. doi:10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00226.
  32. Wu J, Miao G, Zheng Z, et al. 3D printing mesoporous bioactive glass/sodium alginate/gelatin sustained release scaffolds for bone repair. J Biomater Appl. 2019;33(6):755-765. doi:10.1177/0885328218810269.
  33. Lee KY, Mooney DJ. Alginate: properties and biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci. 2012;37(1):106-126. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.003.
  34. Tu X, Guo L, Li Y, et al. 3D-printed gelatin/sodium alginate/58S bioactive glass scaffolds promote osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo. J Biomater Appl. 2023;37(10):1758-1766. doi:10.1177/08853282231152128.
  35. Ye Q, Zhang Y, Dai K, et al. Three dimensional printed bioglass/gelatin/alginate composite scaffolds with promoted mechanical strength, biomineralization, cell responses and osteogenesis. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2020;31:1-11. doi:10.1007/s10856-020-06413-6.

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 14, Issue 6
June 2026
Pages 380-386

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 April 2026
  • Revise Date: 25 May 2026
  • Accept Date: 29 April 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics