Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Indirect 3D printing in tissue engineering: expanding materials used for improved scaffold functionality

Bahraminasab M., Arabhalvaei M., Ghanbari MA.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Biomed Eng Online (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Biomed Eng Online (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41419915
PMCID
PMC12717731
DOI
10.1186/s12938-025-01475-5
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

During the past decades, three-dimensional (3D) printing processes have come as the foremost technology for the fabrication of scaffolds in tissue engineering (TE). The advanced technical approaches followed by 3D printing have provided architectural versatility and customizability. Despite the many progresses, several limitations have emerged related to the available, processable range of materials offering desired functions equivalent or suitable for the target tissue. To address the issue raised, several novel methodologies have been developed where a 3D printed sacrificial mold serves to produce the final scaffold from a wide range of materials, even from the difficult-to-print or unprintable materials. These techniques are known as "indirect 3D printing" (I3DP), which like the direct 3D printing approaches, are able to manufacture controlled, patient-specific constructs. Direct 3D printing faces limitations like poor printability of natural soft polymers and bio-ceramics, restricted resolution of the printed objects, and a limited range of compatible materials. Indirect 3D printing overcomes these by enabling the use of a much wider variety of materials and creating high-strength ceramic scaffolds without clogging or structural defects. This method also provides superior resolution with less parameter optimization and minimizes material waste, making it more efficient. The

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 evidence
AnimalsHumansBiocompatible MaterialsTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsPrinting, Three-Dimensional

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research