Critical Systematic Review of 3D Bioprinting in Biomedicine
Klabukov I., Shestakova V., Garifullin A., Yakimova A., Baranovskii D., Yatsenko E.
Systematic Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Int J Mol Sci (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41465307
- PMCID
- PMC12733282
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms262411882
Abstract (original English)
The rapid development of 3D bioprinting technology has not been critically evaluated for its potential clinical applications… The ability of 3D manufacturing to create organ-like structures obscures the fact that the formed grafts are not physiologically relevant. We hypothesize that researchers do not use techniques that allow for the evaluation of the micro-architectonics of formed implants and mainly focus on biocompatibility and commonly observed immunological responses. This study aims to investigate the morphological landscape of the basics of 3D bioprinting through a systematic review of the outcomes of the experimental implantation of bioprinted constructs. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database using the following query: (bioprinting OR printing OR bioprinted OR printed OR bioinks) AND (cell OR cells) AND (implantation OR implanted OR in vivo) AND (goat OR porcine OR pig OR swine OR dog OR rabbit OR sheep) NOT (human OR humans). This systematic review evaluated the preformed studies of the in vivo assessment the 3D-bioprinted constructs, and 41 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. We concluded that 3D bioprinting has limited applications for forming living tissue for orthotopic implantation. Additionally, quantitative methods for evaluating the properties and morphological quality of implanted bioprinted constructs have not been deve
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.