Up-to-date progress in bioprinting of bone tissue
Wu Y., Li M., Su H., Chen H., Zhu Y.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Bioprint (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Int J Bioprint (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36636136
- PMCID
- PMC9830997
- DOI
- 10.18063/ijb.v9i1.628
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
The major apparatuses used for three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting include extrusion-based, droplet-based, and laser-based bioprinting. Numerous studies have been proposed to fabricate bioactive 3D bone tissues using different bioprinting techniques. In addition to the development of bioinks and assessment of their printability for corresponding bioprinting processes, in vitro and in vivo success of the bioprinted constructs, such as their mechanical properties, cell viability, differentiation capability, immune responses, and osseointegration, have been explored. In this review, several major considerations, challenges, and potential strategies for bone bioprinting have been deliberated, including bioprinting apparatus, biomaterials, structure design of vascularized bone constructs, cell source, differentiation factors, mechanical properties and reinforcement, hypoxic environment, and dynamic culture. In addition, up-to-date progress in bone bioprinting is summarized in detail, which uncovers the immense potential of bioprinting in re-establishing the 3D dynamic microenvironment of the native bone. This review aims to assist the researchers to gain insights into the reconstruction of clinically relevant bone tissues with appropriate mechanical properties and precisely regulated biological behaviors.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.