Three-Dimensional Bioprinting of Articular Cartilage: A Systematic Review

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

Objective Treatment of chondral injury is clinically challenging. Available chondral repair/regeneration techniques have significant shortcomings. A viable and durable tissue engineering strategy for articular cartilage repair remains an unmet need. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the published data on bioprinted articular cartilage with regards to scaffold-based, scaffold-free and in situ cartilage bioprinting. Design We performed a systematic review of studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were searched and all articles evaluating the use of 3-dimensional (3D) bioprinting in articular cartilage were included. Inclusion criteria included studies written in or translated to English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and specifically discussing bioinks and/or bioprinting of living cells related to articular cartilage applications. Review papers, articles in a foreign language, and studies not involving bioprinting of living cells related to articular cartilage applications were excluded. Results Twenty-seven studies for articular cartilage bioprinting were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The technologies, materials, cell types used in these studies, and the biological and physical properties of the created constructs have been demonstrated

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

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