Frontiers posts enthesis scaffold review

Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology on August 31 published a systematic review of 3D-printed scaffold-based strategies for enthesis regeneration, surveying preclinical work aimed at rebuilding the tendon-to-bone interface. The paper was authored by Marco Minelli, Luca Bertolino, Vincenzo Longobardi and colleagues at Humanitas University and IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Italy. (frontiersin.org) The review describes the enthesis as a graded tendon-fibrocartilage-bone interface that is difficult to restore after injury or surgical repair, with healing often ending in mechanically inferior fibrous scar tissue. The article is a literature review rather than a new scaffold experiment, but it is useful because it consolidates the design logic behind additive-manufactured enthesis constructs into one source. (frontiersin.org) For readers working in biomechanics, tissue engineering or device prototyping, the paper functions as a map of the scaffold architectures, biological add-ons and evaluation methods that have already been tested in preclinical settings. ### Why is the tendon-to-bone interface such a hard structure to rebuild? The enthesis is a transition zone, not a simple attachment point, and the review says its native function depends on a graded structure that transfers load between tendon and bone. That gradient matters because tendon, fibrocartilage and bone differ sharply in composition, stiffness and cellular environment. (frontiersin.org) After repair, the paper says, that organized interface is rarely recreated, which helps explain why healing can produce scar tissue with weaker mechanics. A March 2026 Frontiers study on a silk-based in vitro enthesis model described the same problem in practical terms, saying bone-tendon interfaces must withstand complex mechanical loads while coordinating crosstalk among different cell populations. (frontiersin.org) That study used combined electrospun and cryogel scaffold elements to model structural and biochemical gradients at the interface. ### What exactly did the review cover? The Frontiers review says it evaluated original preclinical studies on additively manufactured 3D scaffold-based strategies for tendon-bone interface or enthesis regeneration. The authors searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception through February 13, 2026, and conducted the review under PRISMA 2020 guidelines with PROSPERO registration CRD420261388606. (frontiersin.org) The paper says data extraction focused on scaffold design, biological augmentation and in vitro, in vivo and other outcome measures. That framing matters because it puts materials choice, interface geometry and test readouts in the same comparison set instead of treating them as separate problems. (frontiersin.org) ### What design patterns are scaffold researchers converging on? The review’s core premise is that additive manufacturing is being used to recreate the structural and biological complexity of the tendon-bone interface. In practice, that means scaffold work is moving toward constructs that try to reproduce gradients rather than uniform bulk materials. (frontiersin.org) A related Frontiers review on anterior cruciate ligament regeneration, published in 2026, said recent enthesis-focused scaffold studies emphasize not only compositional gradients but also region-specific fiber architecture, strain-rate-dependent mechanical behavior and multiscale deformation compatibility. Another 2026 Frontiers paper on cartilage regeneration drew a similar contrast between natural materials, which tend to offer bioactivity, and synthetic polymers, which more often provide tunable mechanics and degradation. (frontiersin.org) ### What does this change for CAD and benchtop work? For engineering teams, the most practical use of the review is as a design-and-test checklist. Because the paper organizes scaffold characteristics alongside biological augmentation and preclinical evaluation, it gives modelers a way to turn a tissue-engineering literature search into concrete CAD variables: phase count, gradient placement, pore architecture, fiber orientation and region-specific mechanics. (frontiersin.org) The same structure also helps with benchtop planning. A scaffold concept can be translated into a test matrix that asks whether the geometry supports interface-specific loading, whether the material pairing reflects tendon and bone regions, and whether the validation plan includes both structural and biological readouts used in prior preclinical studies. (frontiersin.org) That is an inference from how the review is organized, rather than a direct claim by the authors. ### Where can readers find the paper and what comes next? Frontiers lists the article as a systematic review published on August 31, 2026 in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, volume 14, under DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2026.1876882. The corresponding author is Vincenzo Longobardi, and the paper is available through the journal’s Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine section. (frontiersin.org) The next step for readers is in the paper itself: the review points to the preclinical scaffold designs, biological augmentations and evaluation frameworks already reported in the literature up to February 13, 2026, providing the source set to replicate, compare or adapt in future enthesis models. (frontiersin.org)