3D Bioprinting of Functional Skin Substitutes: From Current Achievements to Future Goals
Manita PG., Garcia-Orue I., Santos-Vizcaino E., Hernandez RM., Igartua M.
Narrative Review, published in Pharmaceuticals (Basel) (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Pharmaceuticals (Basel) (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 33919848
- PMCID
- PMC8070826
- DOI
- 10.3390/ph14040362
- Citations
- 39
Abstract (original English)
The aim of this review is to present 3D bioprinting of skin substitutes as an efficient approach of managing skin injuries. From a clinical point of view, classic treatments only provide physical protection from the environment, and existing engineered scaffolds, albeit acting as a physical support for cells, fail to overcome needs, such as neovascularisation. In the present work, the basic principles of bioprinting, together with the most popular approaches and choices of biomaterials for 3D-printed skin construct production, are explained, as well as the main advantages over other production methods. Moreover, the development of this technology is described in a chronological manner through examples of relevant experimental work in the last two decades: from the pioneers Lee et al. to the latest advances and different innovative strategies carried out lately to overcome the well-known challenges in tissue engineering of skin. In general, this technology has a huge potential to offer, although a multidisciplinary effort is required to optimise designs, biomaterials and production processes.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.