Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Three-dimensional cell-based bioprinting for soft tissue regeneration

Kim JH., Yoo JJ., Lee SJ.

Narrative Review, published in Tissue Eng Regen Med (2016) — 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
Tissue Eng Regen Med (2016)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
30603446
PMCID
PMC6170860
DOI
10.1007/s13770-016-0133-8
Citations
37

Abstract (original English)

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technologies have been developed to offer construction of biological tissue constructs that mimic the anatomical and functional features of native tissues or organs. These cutting-edge technologies could make it possible to precisely place multiple cell types and biomaterials in a single 3D tissue construct. Hence, 3D bioprinting is one of the most attractive and powerful tools to provide more anatomical and functional similarity of human tissues or organs in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. In recent years, this 3D bioprinting continually shows promise for building complex soft tissue constructs through placement of cell-laden hydrogel-based bioinks in a layer-by-layer fashion. This review will discuss bioprinting technologies and their applications in soft tissue regeneration.

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.