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

Rheological, Structural, and Biological Trade-Offs in Bioink Design for 3D Bioprinting

Elango J., Zamora-Ledezma C.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Gels (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
Gels (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40868789
PMCID
PMC12385449
DOI
10.3390/gels11080659
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Bioinks represent the core of 3D bioprinting, as they are the carrier responsible for enabling the fabrication of anatomically precise, cell-laden constructs that replicate native tissue architecture. Indeed, their role goes beyond structural support, as they must also sustain cellular viability, proliferation, and differentiation functions, which are critical for applications in the field of regenerative medicine and personalized therapies. However, at present, a persistent challenge lies in reconciling the conflicting demands of rheological properties, which are essential for printability and biological functionality. This trade-off limits the clinical translation of bioprinted tissues, particularly for vascularized or mechanically dynamic organs. Despite huge progress during the last decade, challenges persist in standardizing bioink characterization, scaling production, and ensuring long-term biomimetic performance. Based on these challenges, this review explores the inherent trade-off faced by bioink research optimizing rheology to ensure printability, shape fidelity, and structural integrity, while simultaneously maintaining high cell viability, proliferation, and tissue maturation offering insights into designing next-generation bioinks for functional tissue engineering.

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