Commercially available bioinks and state-of-the-art lab-made formulations for bone tissue engineering: A comprehensive review
Chiticaru EA., Ioniță M.
Narrative Review, published in Mater Today Bio (2024) — 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
- Mater Today Bio (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39649248
- PMCID
- PMC11625167
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101341
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Bioprinting and bioinks are two of the game changers in bone tissue engineering. This review presents different bioprinting technologies including extrusion-based, inkjet-based, laser-assisted, light-based, and hybrid technologies with their own strengths and weaknesses. This review will aid researchers in the selection and assessment of the bioink; the discussion ranges from commercially available bioinks to custom lab-made formulations mainly based on natural polymers, such as agarose, alginate, gelatin, collagen, and chitosan, designed for bone tissue engineering. The review is centered on technological advancements and increasing clinical demand within the rapidly growing bioprinting market. From this point of view, 4D, 5D, and 6D printing technologies promise a future where unprecedented levels of innovation will be involved in fabrication processes leading to more dynamic multifunctionalities of bioprinted constructs. Further advances in bioprinting technology, such as hybrid bioprinting methods are covered, with the promise to meet personalized medicine goals while advancing patient outcomes for bone tissues engineering applications.
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.