Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

3D bioprinting and craniofacial regeneration

Dwivedi R., Mehrotra D.

Narrative Review on Cartilage Damage, published in J Oral Biol Craniofac Res (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32983859
PMCID
PMC7493084
DOI
10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.08.011
Citations
29

Abstract (original English)

Background Considering the structural and functional complexity of the craniofacial tissues, 3D bioprinting can be a valuable tool to design and create functional 3D tissues or organs in situ for in vivo applications. This review aims to explore the various aspects of this emerging 3D bioprinting technology and its application in the craniofacial bone or cartilage regeneration. Method Electronic database searches were undertaken on pubmed, google scholar, medline, embase, and science direct for english language literature, published for 3D bioprinting in craniofacial regeneration. The search items used were 'craniofacial regeneration' OR 'jaw regeneration' OR 'maxillofacial regeneration' AND '3D bioprinting' OR 'three dimensional bioprinting' OR 'Additive manufacturing' OR 'rapid prototyping' OR 'patient specific bioprinting'. Reviews and duplicates were excluded. Results Search with above described criteria yielded 476 articles, which reduced to 108 after excluding reviews. Further screening of individual articles led to 77 articles to which 9 additional articles were included from references, and 18 duplicate articles were excluded. Finally we were left with 68 articles to be included in the review. Conclusion Craniofacial tissue and organ regeneration has been reported a success using bioink with different biomaterial and incorporated stem cells in 3D bioprinters. Though sev

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research