Bioinks adapted for in situ bioprinting scenarios of defect sites: a review
Li R., Zhao Y., Zheng Z., Liu Y., Song S., Song L.
Narrative Review, published in RSC Adv (2023) — 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
- RSC Adv (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36875875
- PMCID
- PMC9982714
- DOI
- 10.1039/d2ra07037e
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
In situ bioprinting provides a reliable solution to the problem of in vitro tissue culture and vascularization by printing tissue directly at the site of injury or defect and maturing the printed tissue using the natural cell microenvironment in vivo . As an emerging field, in situ bioprinting is based on computer-assisted scanning results of the defect site and is able to print cells directly at this site with biomaterials, bioactive factors, and other materials without the need to transfer prefabricated grafts as with traditional in vitro 3D bioprinting methods, and the resulting grafts can accurately adapt to the target defect site. However, one of the important reasons hindering the development of in situ bioprinting is the absence of suitable bioinks. In this review, we will summarize bioinks developed in recent years that can adapt to in situ printing scenarios at the defect site, considering three aspects: the in situ design strategy of bioink, the selection of commonly used biomaterials, and the application of bioprinting to different treatment scenarios.
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.