Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Perspective review demonstrates potential of 3D-printed cell-free scaffolds for cartilage repair, indicating an accessible alternative to cell therapies.
Cartilage regeneration and joint preservation are confronted with tremendous challenges. Traditional cell‐based treatments, while effective in some cases, still encounter many limitations, including immunogenicity, high costs, and logistical problems concerning cell sourcing, in vitro expansion, and storage. Recent progress in 3D printing technologies offers a promising alternative: 3D‐printed cell‐free implants. By exploiting biomaterial‐driven activation and augmentation of the pro‐regenerative roles of endogenous stem/progenitor cells (ESPCs), via spatiotemporally controlled biophysical and biochemical cues, these medical devices can offer a scalable patient‐specific solution for cartilage or osteochondral regeneration. This perspective article argues that their success hinges on optimizing intricate scaffold design and fabrication to mimic native tissue hierarchy, elucidating ESPC recruitment and repair mechanisms, and addressing regulatory barriers to clinical translation. Fulfilling these criteria could democratize access to regenerative care while circumventing the ethical and practical pitfalls of exogenous cell‐ and in vitro‐expanded autologous cell‐based interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: