An Overview of 3D Bioprinting Impact on Cell Viability: From Damage Assessment to Protection Solutions
Manzoli S., Merotto E., Piccoli M., Gobbo P., Todros S., Pavan PG.
Narrative Review, published in J Funct Biomater (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
- J Funct Biomater (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41440613
- PMCID
- PMC12733396
- DOI
- 10.3390/jfb16120436
- Citations
- 5
Abstract (original English)
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting has become a widely exploited tissue engineering technique for producing functional constructs that can mimic and replace native tissues. To this end, different printing strategies can be adopted, including inkjet-based, light-assisted, and extrusion-based bioprinting. Despite the great improvements that these innovative techniques introduce, cell viability maintenance during and after the bioprinting process remains a challenging open question. Indeed, the reduction in cell viability is generally related to several crucial conditions during printing, such as high shear stresses and a nutrient-deficient environment of printed constructs. In this work, the current literature on 3D bioprinting technologies is reviewed, focusing on the level of cell damage that can be imparted during biomaterial printing. In particular, extrusion bioprinting, extrusion-associated shear stress and its impact on cell viability are described in detail. The simulation of the bioprinting process through computational fluid dynamics is proposed as an appropriate method to analyze the parameters involved during bioprinting. Moreover, the viability of cells encapsulated into bioink is discussed, as well as literature techniques aimed at enhancing it by both biomaterial modifications and cell micro-encapsulation.
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.