From Medical Imaging to Bioprinted Tissues: The Importance of Workflow Optimisation for Improved Cell Function
Rodríguez Rego JM., Mendoza Cerezo L., Iñesta Vaquera FA., Picado Tejero D., Marcos Romero AC.
Narrative Review, published in Expert Rev Mol Med (2025) — 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
- Expert Rev Mol Med (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40936231
- PMCID
- PMC12558632
- DOI
- 10.1017/erm.2025.10018
Abstract (original English)
Background The rapid advancement of 3D bioprinting is transforming possibilities in tissue engineering and personalised medicine, offering innovative solutions to critical biomedical challenges such as organ shortages and the need for precise 3D cellular models. To fully unlock the potential of this technology, anoptimised and comprehensive workflow is essential. Methods This review provides a systematic examination of the bioprinting process, covering key steps from medical image acquisition to the validation of bioprinted structures. The analysis includes biomaterial and cell type selection, conversion of DICOM images into 3D-printable models, and slicing techniques. Results Key factors influencing the precision, viability, and clinical relevance of bioprinted tissues are identified. Comparisons between planar and non-planar slicing algorithms highlight their impact on scaffold integrity. The review also discusses advancements in algorithm development, bioprinter technology, and biomaterial optimisation, emphasising their role in enhancing reproducibility and functionality. Conclusions This structured review offers actionable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming to refine bioprinting workflows. By integrating improvements across imaging, modelling, and material selection, 3D bioprinting can more effectively support the development of clinically relevant construct
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.