High-resolution vat-photopolymerization of personalized bioceramic implants: new advances, regulatory hurdles, and key recommendations

References

• Marongiu G, Verona M, Cardoni G, et al. Synthetic bone substitutes and mechanical devices for the augmentation of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of clinical studies. J Funct Biomater. 2020;11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallet-Regí M, Ruiz-Hernández E. Bioceramics: from bone regeneration to cancer nanomedicine. Adv Mater. 2011;23:5177–5218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen R, Scheppokat S, Claussen N. Tailor-made ceramic-based components-advantages by reactive processing and advanced shaping techniques. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2008;28:1369–1379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouville F, Maire E, Meille S, et al. Strong, tough and stiff bioinspired ceramics from brittle constituents. Nat. Mater. 2014;13:508–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin K, Sheikh R, Romanazzo S, et al. 3D printing of bioceramic scaffolds-barriers to the clinical translation: from promise to reality, and future perspectives. Materials (Basel). 2019;12:2660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang F, Li Z, Xu M, et al. A review of 3D printed porous ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2022;42:3351–3373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo P, Degischer HP. Highly porous metals and ceramics. Mater Sci Technol. 2010;26:1145–1158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He R, Liu W, Wu Z, et al. Fabrication of complex-shaped zirconia ceramic parts via a DLP- stereolithography-based 3D printing method. Ceram Int 2018;44:3412–3416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelz JS, Ku N, Meyers MA, et al. Additive manufacturing of structural ceramics: a historical perspective. J Mater Res Technol. 2021;15:670–695.
   Google Scholar
• Standard terminology for additive manufacturing – general principles – terminology. ASTM Int 2015, 52900, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Gmeiner R, Deisinger U, Schönherr J, et al. Additive manufacturing of bioactive glasses and silicate bioceramics. J Ceram Sci Technol. 2015;6:75–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bose S, Vahabzadeh S, Bandyopadhyay A. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Mater Today. 2013;16:496–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahzad K, Deckers J, Zhang Z, et al. Additive manufacturing of zirconia parts by indirect selective laser sintering. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2014;34:81–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roohani-Esfahani S-I, Newman P, Zreiqat H. Design and fabrication of 3D printed scaffolds with a mechanical strength comparable to cortical bone to repair large bone defects. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Mandal S, Barui S, et al. Low temperature additive manufacturing of three dimensional scaffolds for bone-tissue engineering applications: processing related challenges and property assessment. Mater Sci Eng R Reports. 2016;103:1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diptanshu; Young, E.; Ma, C.; Obeidat, S.; Pang, B.; Kang, N. Ceramic additive manufacturing using vat photopolymerization 2018, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Barba A, Maazouz Y, Diez-Escudero A, et al. Osteogenesis by foamed and 3D-printed nanostructured calcium phosphate scaffolds: effect of pore architecture. Acta Biomater. 2018;79:135–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entezari A, Roohani I, Li G, et al. Architectural design of 3D printed scaffolds controls the volume and functionality of newly formed bone. Adv Healthc Mater. 2019;8:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirkhalaf M, Goldsmith J, Ren J, et al. Highly substituted calcium silicates 3D printed with complex architectures to produce stiff, strong and bioactive scaffolds for bone regeneration. Appl Mater Today. 2021;25:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Chen Y. Vat-Photopolymerization-Based ceramic manufacturing. J Mater Eng Perform. 2021;30:4819–4836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma H, Feng C, Chang J, et al. 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds: from bone tissue engineering to tumor therapy. Acta Biomater. 2018;79:37–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorndran E, Moseke C, Gbureck U. 3D printing of ceramic implants. MRS Bull. 2015;40:127–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson ZM, Yuan Y, Li X, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells and three-dimensional-osteoconductive scaffold regenerate calvarial bone in critical size defects in swine. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2021;10:1170–1183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badev A, Abouliatim Y, Chartier T, et al. Photopolymerization kinetics of a polyether acrylate in the presence of ceramic fillers used in stereolithography. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem. 2011;222:117–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakeri S, Vippola M, Levänen E. A comprehensive review of the photopolymerization of ceramic resins used in stereolithography. Addit Manuf. 2020;35:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun H-B, Kawata S. Two-photon photopolymerization and 3D lithographic microfabrication. Adv Polym Sci. 2004;170:169–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song X, Chen Y, Lee TW, et al. Ceramic fabrication using Mask-Image-Projection-based Stereolithography integrated with tape-casting. J Manuf Process. 2015;20:456–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitteramskogler G, Gmeiner R, Felzmann R, et al. Light curing strategies for lithography-based additive manufacturing of customized ceramics. Addit Manuf. 2014;1:110–118.
   Google Scholar
• Brie J, Chartier T, Chaput C, et al. A new custom made bioceramic implant for the repair of large and complex craniofacial bone defects. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2013;41:403–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt J, Elsayed H, Bernardo E, et al. Digital light processing of wollastonite-diopside glass-ceramic complex structures. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2018;38:4580–4584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baino F, Magnaterra G, Fiume E, et al. Digital light processing stereolithography of hydroxyapatite scaffolds with bone-like architecture, permeability, and mechanical properties. J Am Ceram Soc. 2022;105:1648–1657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brigo L, Schmidt JEM, Gandin A, et al. 3D nanofabrication of SiOC ceramic structures. Adv Sci. 2018;5:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer J, Hengsbach S, Tesari I, et al. High-strength cellular ceramic composites with 3D microarchitecture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2014;111:2453–2458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meza LR, Das S, Greer JR. Strong, lightweight, and recoverable three-dimensional ceramic nanolattices. Science (80-.). 2014;345:1322–1326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen X, Zhang B, Wang W, et al. 3D-printed silica with nanoscale resolution. Nat Mater. 2021;20:1506–1511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafkamp T, van Baars G, de Jager B, et al. A feasibility study on process monitoring and control in vat photopolymerization of ceramics. Mechatronics (Oxf). 2018;56:220–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloran JW, Tomeckova V, Gentry S, et al. Photopolymerization of powder suspensions for shaping ceramics. J Eur Ceram. Soc. 2011;31:2613–2619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentry SP, Halloran JW. Depth and width of cured lines in photopolymerizable ceramic suspensions. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2013;33:1981–1988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang K, Qiu M, Jiao C, et al. Study on defect-free debinding green body of ceramic formed by DLP technology. Ceram Int. 2020;46:2438–2446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F, Wu Y, Zhu H, et al. Mechanical and biological properties of ZrO2 bioceramics by stereolithography technique. Kuei Suan Jen Hsueh Pao/Journal Chinese Ceram. Soc. 2021;49:1837–1845.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg M, Obolkina T, Smirnov S, et al. The influence of co additive on the sintering, mechanical properties, cytocompatibility, and digital light processing based stereolithography of 3Y-TZP-5Al2O3 ceramics. Materials (Basel). 2020;13:1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Jiang Z, Zhao L, et al. Stability, rheological behaviors, and curing properties of 3Y–ZrO2 and 3Y–ZrO2/GO ceramic suspensions in stereolithography applied for dental implants. Ceram Int. 2021;47:13344–13350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Wang M, Wu H, et al. Cure behavior of colorful ZrO2 suspensions during digital light processing (DLP) based stereolithography process. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2019;39:4921–4927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F, Wu Y-R, Wu J-M, et al. Preparation and characterization of ZrO2-Al2O3 bioceramics by stereolithography technology for dental restorations. Addit Manuf. 2021;44:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Huang C, Wang J, et al. Design and characterization of hydroxyapatite scaffolds fabricated by stereolithography for Bone Tissue Engineering Application 2020. Procedia CIRP. 2020;89:170–175.
   Google Scholar
• Liu K, Wu X, Liu J, et al. Design and manufacture of a customized, large-size and high-strength bioactive HA osteoid composite ceramic by stereolithography. Ceram Int. 2022;49:11630–11640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidleithner C, Malferarri S, Palgrave R, et al. Application of high resolution DLP stereolithography for fabrication of tricalcium phosphate scaffolds for bone regeneration. Biomed Mater. 2019;14:45018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang X, Dai H, Hu Y, et al. Development of a high solid loading β-TCP suspension with a low refractive index contrast for DLP -based ceramic stereolithography. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2021;41:3743–3754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thavornyutikarn B, Tesavibul P, Sitthiseripratip K, et al. Porous 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds using stereolithography: effect of partial pre-sintering on structural and mechanical properties of scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017;75:1281–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu R, Li Y, Shen M, et al. Bone tissue regeneration: the role of finely tuned pore architecture of bioactive scaffolds before clinical translation. Bioact Mater. 2021;6:1242–1254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Dai X, Peng Y, et al. Digital light processing strength-strong ultra-thin bioceramic scaffolds for challengeable orbital bone regeneration and repair in situ. Appl Mater Today. 2021;22:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu F, Wu R, Shen M, et al. Rational design of bioceramic scaffolds with tuning pore geometry by stereolithography: microstructure evaluation and mechanical evolution. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2021;41:1672–1682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Wu R, Yu L, et al. Rational design of nonstoichiometric bioceramic scaffolds via digital light processing: tuning chemical composition and pore geometry evaluation. J Biol Eng. 2021;15:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bal BS, Rahaman MN. Orthopedic applications of silicon nitride ceramics. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:2889–2898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer-Fischer E, Zschippang E, Kunz W, et al. CerAMfacturing of silicon nitride by using lithography-based ceramic vat photopolymerization (CerAM VPP). J Eur Ceram Soc. 2023;43:321–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Guo D, Li J, et al. Irregular pore size of degradable bioceramic Voronoi scaffolds prepared by stereolithography: osteogenesis and computational fluid dynamics analysis. Mater Des. 2022;224:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zhang Q, He F, et al. Fabrication of cancellous-bone-mimicking β-tricalcium phosphate bioceramic scaffolds with tunable architecture and mechanical strength by stereolithography 3D printing. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2022;42:6713–6720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarrete-Segado P, Tourbin M, Frances C, et al. Masked stereolithography of hydroxyapatite bioceramic scaffolds: from powder tailoring to evaluation of 3D printed parts properties. Open Ceram. 2022;9:100235.
   Google Scholar
• Van hede D, Liang B, Anania S, et al. 3D-Printed synthetic hydroxyapatite scaffold with in silico optimized macrostructure enhances bone formation in vivo. Adv Funct Mater. 2022;32:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong D, Su H, Li X, et al. Microstructures and mechanical properties of biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics fabricated by SLA 3D printing. J Manuf Process. 2022;81:433–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han X, Sun M, Chen B, et al. Lotus seedpod-inspired internal vascularized 3D printed scaffold for bone tissue repair. Bioact Mater. 2021;6:1639–1652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Dong Z, Li C, et al. Continuous 3D printing from one single droplet. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han F, Gu S, Klimas A, et al. Three-dimensional nanofabrication via ultrafast laser patterning and kinetically regulated material assembly. Science (80-.). 2022;378:1325–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Páez-Avilés C, Juanola-Feliu E, Bogachan-Tahirbegi I, et al. Innovation and technology transfer of medical devices fostered by cross-disciplinary communities of practitioners. Int J Innov Manag. 2015;19:1540012.
   Google Scholar
• Gambardella A. Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Res Policy. 1992;21:391–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferys DB. The regulation of medical devices and the role of the Medical Devices Agency. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2001;52:229–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wizemann T. Public health effectiveness of the FDA 510 (k) clearance process: balancing patient safety and innovation: workshop report; 2010;.
   Google Scholar
• Lee SS. Medical technology development and globalization: the role of the medical device industry. J Korean Med Assoc. 2014;57:919–926.
   Google Scholar
• Moilanen J, Montonen T, Eriksson P. The conflictual sense of commercialisation and academic entrepreneurship. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manag. 2021;21:165–177.
   Google Scholar
• Therapeutic Goods Administration. List of countries and jurisdictions determined to be comparable overseas regulators (CORs). Available online: https://www.tga.gov.au/list-countries-and-jurisdictions-determined-be-comparable-overseas-regulators-cors. October, 2019
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Medical Devices. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/medical-devices. January 2021
   Google Scholar
• Bergsland J, Elle OJ, Fosse E. Barriers to medical device innovation. Med Devices. 2014;7:205.
   Google Scholar
• Sorenson C, Drummond M. Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective. Milbank Q. 2014;92:114–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen D BM. Europeans are left to their own devices. Br Med J. 2011;342:d2952.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCulloch P. The EU’s system for regulating medical devices: now is the time for radical change. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu S, Hassenplug J. Patient access to medical devices – a comparison of U.S. and European review processes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:485–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamph S. Regulation of medical devices outside the European union. J. R. Soc. Med. 2012;105:12–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (November 2021). Personalised medical devices (including 3D-printed devices) Regulatory changes for custom-made medical devices.
   Google Scholar
• Baura GD. Corporate considerations on biomaterials and medical devices: case studies in regulation and reimbursement. Claremont (CA): Academic Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Overview of Medical Device Classification and Reclassification Available online: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-transparency/overview-medical-device-classification-and-reclassification. December 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Product Code Classification Database Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm. March 2018.
   Google Scholar
• D’Urso. P. Searching for an even playing field: a call to government to assist Australian medical innovation; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Van Norman GA. Drugs, devices, and the FDA: part 1: an overview of approval processes for drugs. JACC Basic to Transl Sci. 2016;1:170–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Federal Register Notice 80(148). Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Food and Drug Administration. Augest 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. and Jeff Shuren, M.D., on transformative new steps to modernize FDA’s 510(k) program to advance the Review of the Safety and Effectiveness Of Medical Devices. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-and-jeff-shuren-md-director-center-devices-and. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notification [510(k)]. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug administration Staff Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/510k-program-evaluating-substantial-equivalence-premarket-notifications-510k. May 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Technical Considerations for Additive Manufacured Medical Devices. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/technical-considerations-additive-manufactured-medical-devices. 2014
   Google Scholar
• Ho C, Jensen D, Lacy F, et al. Use of standards in the review of medical devices. J Electrocardiol. 2005;38:171–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Standards and Conformity Assessment Program Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-and-preparing-correct-submission/standards-and-conformity-assessment-program. 2019
   Google Scholar
• Test Methods For Intervertebral Body Fusion Devices. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. 2018, ASTM F2077-18.
   Google Scholar
• Recognized Consensus Standards. ASTM F2077-18. In Food and Drug Administration; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years. In Institute of Medicine. Medical Devices and the Public’s Health.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Heneghan C. The saga of poly implant prothèse breast implants. Br Med J. 2011;344:e306.
   Google Scholar
• Lueddemann T, Chang D, Sahin S, et al. Medical device approval process in China since the introduction of the China Food and Drug Administration. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE). 2016; p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Normand S, Hatfield L, Drozda J. Postmarket surveillance for medical devices: America’s new strategy. Br Med J. 2012;345:1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus HJ, Payne CJ, Hughes-Hallett A, et al. Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study. Br Med J. 2016;353:1–5.
   Google Scholar