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

In Vitro and In Vivo Biological Assessments of 3D-Bioprinted Scaffolds for Dental Applications

Mohd N., Razali M., Fauzi MB., Abu Kasim NH.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Int J Mol Sci (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
Int J Mol Sci (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37629064
PMCID
PMC10454183
DOI
10.3390/ijms241612881
Citations
18

Abstract (original English)

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a unique combination of technological advances in 3D printing and tissue engineering. It has emerged as a promising approach to address the dilemma in current dental treatments faced by clinicians in order to repair or replace injured and diseased tissues. The exploration of 3D bioprinting technology provides high reproducibility and precise control of the bioink containing the desired cells and biomaterial over the architectural and dimensional features of the scaffolds in fabricating functional tissue constructs that are specific to the patient treatment need. In recent years, the dental applications of different 3D bioprinting techniques, types of novel bioinks, and the types of cells used have been extensively explored. Most of the findings noted significant challenges compared to the non-biological 3D printing approach in constructing the bioscaffolds that mimic native tissues. Hence, this review focuses solely on the implementation of 3D bioprinting techniques and strategies based on cell-laden bioinks. It discusses the in vitro applications of 3D-bioprinted scaffolds on cell viabilities, cell functionalities, differentiation ability, and expression of the markers as well as the in vivo evaluations of the implanted bioscaffolds on the animal models for bone, periodontal, dentin, and pulp tissue regeneration. Finally, it outlines some

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
AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsReproducibility of ResultsCell DifferentiationCell SurvivalBioprinting

Browse all related research

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

Related research