Advances in Cryopreservation Strategies for 3D Biofabricated Constructs: From Hydrogels to Bioprinted Tissues
Ziani K., Saenz-Del-Burgo L., Pedraz JL., Ciriza J.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2025) — 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
- Int J Mol Sci (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40725153
- PMCID
- PMC12295925
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms26146908
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
The cryopreservation of three-dimensional (3D) biofabricated constructs is a key enabler for their clinical application in regenerative medicine. Unlike two-dimensional (2D) cultures, 3D systems such as encapsulated cell spheroids, molded hydrogels, and bioprinted tissues present specific challenges related to cryoprotectant (CPA) diffusion, thermal gradients, and ice formation during freezing and thawing. This review examines the current strategies for preserving 3D constructs, focusing on the role of biomaterials as cryoprotective matrices. Natural polymers (e.g., hyaluronic acid, alginate, chitosan), protein-based scaffolds (e.g., silk fibroin, sericin), and synthetic polymers (e.g., polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)) are evaluated for their ability to support cell viability, structural integrity, and CPA transport. Special attention is given to cryoprotectant systems that are free of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and to the influence of hydrogel architecture on freezing outcomes. We have compared the efficacy and limitations of slow freezing and vitrification protocols and review innovative approaches such as temperature-controlled cryoprinting, nano-warming, and hybrid scaffolds with improved cryocompatibility. Additionally, we address the regulatory and manufacturing challenges associated with developing Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compliant cryopreser
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.