Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Of balls, inks and cages: Hybrid biofabrication of 3D tissue analogs

Moldovan NI., Moldovan L., Raghunath M.

Narrative Review, published in Int J Bioprint (2019) — 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
Int J Bioprint (2019)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32596531
PMCID
PMC7294696
DOI
10.18063/ijb.v5i1.167
Citations
7

Abstract (original English)

The overarching principle of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is the placing of cells or cell clusters in the 3D space to generate a cohesive tissue microarchitecture that comes close to in vivo characteristics. To achieve this goal, several technical solutions are available, generating considerable combinatorial bandwidth: (i) Support structures are generated first, and cells are seeded subsequently; (ii) alternatively, cells are delivered in a printing medium, so-called "bioink," that contains them during the printing process and ensures shape fidelity of the generated structure; and (iii) a "scaffold-free" version of bioprinting, where only cells are used and the extracellular matrix is produced by the cells themselves, also recently entered a phase of accelerated development and successful applications. However, the scaffold-free approaches may still benefit from secondary incorporation of scaffolding materials, thus expanding their versatility. Reversibly, the bioink-based bioprinting could also be improved by adopting some of the principles and practices of scaffold-free biofabrication. Collectively, we anticipate that combinations of these complementary methods in a "hybrid" approach, rather than their development in separate technological niches, will largely increase their efficiency and applicability in tissue 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 evidence

Browse all related research

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