Current status of three-dimensional printing inks for soft tissue regeneration
Kim JE., Kim SH., Jung Y.
Narrative Review, published in Tissue Eng Regen Med (2016) — 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
- Tissue Eng Regen Med (2016)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 30603445
- PMCID
- PMC6170864
- DOI
- 10.1007/s13770-016-0125-8
- Citations
- 42
Abstract (original English)
Recently, three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies have become an attractive manufacturing process, which is called additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping. A 3D printing system can design and fabricate 3D shapes and geometries resulting in custom 3D scaffolds in tissue engineering. In tissue regeneration and replacement, 3D printing systems have been frequently used with various biomaterials such as natural and synthetic polymers. In tissue engineering, soft tissue regeneration is very difficult because soft tissue has the properties of high elasticity, flexibility and viscosity which act as an obstacle when creating a 3D structure by stacking layer after layer of biomaterials compared to hard tissue regeneration. To overcome these limitations, many studies are trying to fabricate constructs with a very similar native micro-environmental property for a complex biofunctional scaffold with suitable biological and mechanical parameters by optimizing the biomaterials, for example, control the concentration and diversification of materials. In this review, we describe the characteristics of printing biomaterials such as hydrogel, synthetic polymer and composite type as well as recent advances in soft tissue regeneration. It is expected that 3D printed constructs will be able to replace as well as regenerate defective tissues or injured functional tissues and organs.
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.