Natural Hydrogel-Based Bio-Inks for 3D Bioprinting in Tissue Engineering: A Review
Fatimi A., Okoro OV., Podstawczyk D., Siminska-Stanny J., Shavandi A.
Narrative Review, published in Gels (2022) — 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
- Gels (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35323292
- PMCID
- PMC8948717
- DOI
- 10.3390/gels8030179
- Citations
- 135
Abstract (original English)
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is well acknowledged to constitute an important technology in tissue engineering, largely due to the increasing global demand for organ replacement and tissue regeneration. In 3D bioprinting, which is a step ahead of 3D biomaterial printing, the ink employed is impregnated with cells, without compromising ink printability. This allows for immediate scaffold cellularization and generation of complex structures. The use of cell-laden inks or bio-inks provides the opportunity for enhanced cell differentiation for organ fabrication and regeneration. Recognizing the importance of such bio-inks, the current study comprehensively explores the state of the art of the utilization of bio-inks based on natural polymers (biopolymers), such as cellulose, agarose, alginate, decellularized matrix, in 3D bioprinting. Discussions regarding progress in bioprinting, techniques and approaches employed in the bioprinting of natural polymers, and limitations and prospects concerning future trends in human-scale tissue and organ fabrication are also presented.
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.