Hydrogel-Based Bioinks for Coaxial and Triaxial Bioprinting: A Review of Material Properties, Printing Techniques, and Applications
Banigo AT., Nauta L., Zoetebier B., Karperien M.
Systematic Review, published in Polymers (Basel) (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
- Polymers (Basel) (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40219306
- PMCID
- PMC11991663
- DOI
- 10.3390/polym17070917
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Three-dimensional bioprinting technology has emerged as a rapidly advancing multidisciplinary field with significant potential for tissue engineering applications. This technology enables the formation of complex tissues and organs by utilizing hydrogels, with or without cells, as scaffolds or structural supports. Among various bioprinting methods, advanced bioprinting using coaxial and triaxial nozzles stands out as a promising technique. Coaxial bioprinting technique simultaneously deposits two material streams through a coaxial nozzle, enabling controlled formation of an outer shell and inner core construct. In contrast, triaxial bioprinting utilizes three material streams namely the outer shell, inner shell and inner core to fabricate more complex constructs. Despite the growing interest in 3D bioprinting, the development of suitable cell-laden bioinks for creating complex tissues remains unclear. To address this gap, a systematic review was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart, collecting 1621 papers from various databases, including Web of Science, PUBMED, SCOPUS, and Springer Link. After careful selection, 85 research articles focusing on coaxial and triaxial bioprinting were included in the review. Specifically, 77 research articles concentrated on coaxial bioprinting and 11 focused on triaxial bioprin
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.