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

Recapitulating the bone extracellular matrix through 3D bioprinting using various crosslinking chemistries

Parmentier L., Vermeersch E., Van Vlierberghe S.

Narrative Review, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (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
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40539097
PMCID
PMC12177472
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2025.1506122
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Bioprinting allows to spatially organize cellular niches influencing mechanobiology into tissue engineered constructs thereby aiming to achieve a similar functional complexity as the various tissues present within bone. Natural polymer hydrogel matrices are favorably selected as part of many bioinks thanks to their level of mimicry with the bone osteoid matrix. More specifically, a variety of biophysical and biochemical cues targeting osteogenesis can be presented towards cells encapsulated in bioprinted constructs. This review focusses on delineating bioprinting targeting osteogenesis based on the printing approach (deposition-versus light-based bioprinting) and crosslinking chemistry utilized (chain- versus step-growth crosslinking). Moreover, the cell-biomaterial interactions at play within these constructs are addressed in line with currently established mechanobiology concepts. The delicate interplay between the presented cues from the encapsulating matrix, the used printing process and the maturity, source and concentration of the used cell type finally dictates the osteoregenerative outcome of a bioprinted construct. Given the advantages towards cell encapsulation associated with step-growth systems, there is a huge need to evaluate these systems in comparison to the heavily reported chain-growth systems (predominantly gelatin-methacryloyl or GelMA) towards the bioprinti

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

Browse all related research

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