3D Bioprinting Technologies for Hard Tissue and Organ Engineering
Wang X., Ao Q., Tian X., Fan J., Wei Y., Hou W.
Narrative Review, published in Materials (Basel) (2016) — 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
- Materials (Basel) (2016)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 28773924
- PMCID
- PMC5456640
- DOI
- 10.3390/ma9100802
- Citations
- 73
Abstract (original English)
Hard tissues and organs, including the bones, teeth and cartilage, are the most extensively exploited and rapidly developed areas in regenerative medicine field. One prominent character of hard tissues and organs is that their extracellular matrices mineralize to withstand weight and pressure. Over the last two decades, a wide variety of 3D printing technologies have been adapted to hard tissue and organ engineering. These 3D printing technologies have been defined as 3D bioprinting. Especially for hard organ regeneration, a series of new theories, strategies and protocols have been proposed. Some of the technologies have been applied in medical therapies with some successes. Each of the technologies has pros and cons in hard tissue and organ engineering. In this review, we summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the historical available innovative 3D bioprinting technologies for used as special tools for hard tissue and organ engineering.
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.