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

Review on Additives in Hydrogels for 3D Bioprinting of Regenerative Medicine: From Mechanism to Methodology

Fang W., Yang M., Liu M., Jin Y., Wang Y., Yang R.

Narrative Review on Immune Modulation, published in Pharmaceutics (2023) — 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
Pharmaceutics (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37376148
PMCID
PMC10302687
DOI
10.3390/pharmaceutics15061700
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

The regeneration of biological tissues in medicine is challenging, and 3D bioprinting offers an innovative way to create functional multicellular tissues. One common way in bioprinting is bioink, which is one type of the cell-loaded hydrogel. For clinical application, however, the bioprinting still suffers from satisfactory performance, e.g., in vascularization, effective antibacterial, immunomodulation, and regulation of collagen deposition. Many studies incorporated different bioactive materials into the 3D-printed scaffolds to optimize the bioprinting. Here, we reviewed a variety of additives added to the 3D bioprinting hydrogel. The underlying mechanisms and methodology for biological regeneration are important and will provide a useful basis for future research.

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.

Related research