Current advancements in bio-ink technology for cartilage and bone tissue engineering
Badhe RV., Chatterjee A., Bijukumar D., Mathew MT.
Narrative Review, published in Bone (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
- Bone (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36965655
- PMCID
- PMC10559728
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bone.2023.116746
- Citations
- 15
Abstract (original English)
In tissue engineering, the fate of a particular organ/tissue regeneration and repair mainly depends on three pillars - 3D architecture, cells used, and stimulus provided. 3D cell supportive structure development is one of the crucial pillars necessary for defining organ/tissue geometry and shape. In recent years, the advancements in 3D bio-printing (additive manufacturing) made it possible to develop very precise 3D architectures with the help of industrial software like Computer-Aided Design (CAD). The main requirement for the 3D printing process is the bio-ink, which can act as a source for cell support, proliferation, drug (growth factors, stimulators) delivery, and organ/tissue shape. The selection of the bio-ink depends upon the type of 3D tissue of interest. Printing tissues like bone and cartilage is always challenging because it is difficult to find printable biomaterial that can act as bio-ink and mimic the strength of the natural bone and cartilage tissues. This review describes different biomaterials used to develop bio-inks with different processing variables and cell-seeding densities for bone and cartilage 3D printing applications. The review also discusses the advantages, limitations, and cell bio-ink compatibility in each biomaterial section. The emphasis is given to bio-inks reported for 3D printing cartilage and bone and their applications in orthopedics and o
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.