Bioprinted Constructs in the Regulatory Landscape: Current State and Future Perspectives
Perin F., Ouyang L., Lim KS., Motta A., Maniglio D., Moroni L.
Clinical Trial, published in Adv Mater (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- 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
- Clinical Trial
- Journal
- Adv Mater (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41099479
- PMCID
- PMC12810673
- DOI
- 10.1002/adma.202504037
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
Bioprinting has become one of the leading topics in biomedical research in the past decade, as demonstrated by the great surge in publications and proliferation of bioprinting facilities worldwide. Bioprinting has gained widespread popularity because of its potential to replicate complex biological structures, revolutionize in vitro testing, and tissue engineering. However, the clinical translation of bioprinted products remains a challenge. The regulatory approval of tissue-engineered products requires extensive preclinical and clinical trials with different standards worldwide. The regulatory landscape for bioprinted products is examined in the European Union, United States, China, and Australia. The current regulatory status of bioprinting is traced by exploring parallels with existing categories such as 3D printed medical devices, injectable hydrogels, and tissue engineering products. This perspective provides a comprehensive overview of the current state and regulatory landscape of bioprinted constructs, envisioning challenges, and strategies for their future integration into clinical practice.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.