Research Article Fabrication and Evaluation of Electrospun, 3D-Bioplotted, and Combination of Electrospun/3D-Bioplotted Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications Liliana F. Mellor, 1 Pedro Huebner, 2 Shaobo Cai, 1 Mahsa Mohiti-Asli, 1 Michael A. Taylor, 1 Jeffrey Spang, 3 Rohan A. Shirwaiker, 1,2 and Elizabeth G. Loboa 4 1 Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 2 Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 3 Department of Orthopaedics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 4 College of Engineering, University of Missouri, W1051 Tomas & Nell Laferre Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Rohan A. Shirwaiker; rashirwaiker@ncsu.edu and Elizabeth G. Loboa; egloboa@missouri.edu Received 6 December 2016; Revised 20 March 2017; Accepted 2 April 2017; Published 27 April 2017 Academic Editor: Changmin Hu Copyright © 2017 Liliana F. Mellor et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Electrospun scafolds provide a dense framework of nanofbers with pore sizes and fber diameters that closely resemble the architecture of native extracellular matrix. However, it generates limited three-dimensional structures of relevant physiological thicknesses. 3D printing allows digitally controlled fabrication of three-dimensional single/multimaterial constructs with precisely ordered fber and pore architecture in a single build. However, this approach generally lacks the ability to achieve submicron resolution features to mimic native tissue. Te goal of this study was to fabricate and evaluate 3D printed, electrospun, and combination of 3D printed/electrospun scafolds to mimic the native architecture of heterogeneous tissue. We assessed their ability to support viability and proliferation of human adipose derived stem cells (hASC). Cells had increased proliferation and high viability over 21 days on all scafolds. We further tested implantation of stacked-electrospun scafold versus combined electrospun/3D scafold on a cadaveric pig knee model and found that stacked-electrospun scafold easily delaminated during implantation while the combined scafold was easier to implant. Our approach combining these two commonly used scafold fabrication technologies allows for the creation of a scafold with more close resemblance to heterogeneous tissue architecture, holding great potential for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications of osteochondral tissue and other heterogeneous tissues. 1. Introduction Tissue engineering is a growing feld that aims to create living biological substitutes to restore, repair, or regenerate native tissue or organ function that may be afected by disease or injury. Te main components of engineered tissues include cells, scafolds, and chemical and/or mechanical cues to replicate or mimic the physiological conditions of the target tissue [1]. Te individual characteristics of each of these components and their interactions have a signifcant impact on the quality and functionality of engineered tissues [2]. As such, it is important to determine the optimum combination of relevant characteristics for any target tissue to be engi- neered. Te most commonly used strategies in tissue engineering involve seeding a uniform or homogenous scafold with a single cell type. But, in reality, most tissues are composed of several cell types and a diverse and heterogenic extracellular matrix (ECM) framework [3, 4]. Failure to replicate the phys- iological and native conditions can have negative results in engineered tissue integration and function when implanted in an organism [1, 5]. Scafold design in tissue engineering Hindawi BioMed Research International Volume 2017, Article ID 6956794, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6956794