The field of tissue engineering still debates whether or not the use of natural scaffolds (ECM) or synthetic scaffolds are ideal when it comes to the longevity, mechanical strength, and efficiency of engineered tissue following transplantation. Although both natural and synthetic scaffolds can be used in tissue engineering, the benefits of creating natural scaffolds through decellularization of the ECM greatly outweighs those of synthetic scaffolds. Fishman and colleagues (2014) highlight these benefits by comparing natural scaffolds to synthetic scaffolds. Biological scaffolds that are composed of ECM are a better representation of native tissue and can accommodate growth more efficiently than artificial materials in synthetic scaffolds. As previously …show more content…
In turn, ECM scaffolds make implantation into the recipient easier because it contains donor antigens from the ECM source and promotes a non-immunogenic response from the recipient. Synthetic scaffolds are more likely to cause an immune response when implanted as it is considered more foreign. As a result, natural scaffolds exhibit better biocompatibility than synthetic scaffolds do.
In addition, ECM scaffolds have highly preserved vasculature. The vasculature of the ECM contains an arrangement of blood vessels that are capable of carrying or circulating fluids. As the ECM resulted from a source and was decellularized, it would still contain its vascularity, whereas a synthetic scaffold is built from the ground up and lacks vasculature. Artificial blood vessels would need to be made, which would require a structural scaffold, vascular cells, and a nurturing environment. Bioreactors that mimic the in vivo environment of vascular cells would also be required to produce a pulsatile flow (Kakisis et al, 2005). Creation of artificial blood vessels within a scaffold are still undergoing experimentation and