Complex 3D bioprinting methods

Ji, Shen; Guvendiren, Murat

doi:10.1063/5.0034901

Cited by 62 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 196 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is difficult to speculate on what the landscape will be in several years of a decade, but the current frame within the literature is trending towards accuracy as well as precision (Bisht et al, 2021 ). The field of bioprinting will not be a “on size fits all” approach and unlikely to become a large-scale production of the technology, but rather a bespoke technology that will be produced depending on the patient's needs as well as the clinical application (Alcala-Orozco et al, 2021 ; Ji and Guvendiren, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Candidate Bioinks for Extrusion 3D Bioprinting—A Systematic Review of the Literature

Tarassoli

Jessop

Jovic

et al. 2021

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Bioprinting is becoming an increasingly popular platform technology for engineering a variety of tissue types. Our aim was to identify biomaterials that have been found to be suitable for extrusion 3D bioprinting, outline their biomechanical properties and biocompatibility towards their application for bioprinting specific tissue types. This systematic review provides an in-depth overview of current biomaterials suitable for extrusion to aid bioink selection for specific research purposes and facilitate design of novel tailored bioinks.Methods: A systematic search was performed on EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. References of relevant articles, between December 2006 to January 2018, on candidate bioinks used in extrusion 3D bioprinting were reviewed by two independent investigators against standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted on bioprinter brand and model, printing technique and specifications (speed and resolution), bioink material and class of mechanical assessment, cell type, viability, and target tissue. Also noted were authors, study design (in vitro/in vivo), study duration and year of publication.Results: A total of 9,720 studies were identified, 123 of which met inclusion criteria, consisting of a total of 58 reports using natural biomaterials, 26 using synthetic biomaterials and 39 using a combination of biomaterials as bioinks. Alginate (n = 50) and PCL (n = 33) were the most commonly used bioinks, followed by gelatin (n = 18) and methacrylated gelatin (GelMA) (n = 16). Pneumatic extrusion bioprinting techniques were the most common (n = 78), followed by piston (n = 28). The majority of studies focus on the target tissue, most commonly bone and cartilage, and investigate only one bioink rather than assessing a range to identify those with the most promising printability and biocompatibility characteristics. The Bioscaffolder (GeSiM, Germany), 3D Discovery (regenHU, Switzerland), and Bioplotter (EnvisionTEC, Germany) were the most commonly used commercial bioprinters (n = 35 in total), but groups most often opted to create their own in-house devices (n = 20). Many studies also failed to specify whether the mechanical data reflected pre-, during or post-printing, pre- or post-crosslinking and with or without cells.Conclusions: Despite the continued increase in the variety of biocompatible synthetic materials available, there has been a shift change towards using natural rather than synthetic bioinks for extrusion bioprinting, dominated by alginate either alone or in combination with other biomaterials. On qualitative analysis, no link was demonstrated between the type of bioink or extrusion technique and the target tissue, indicating that bioprinting research is in its infancy with no established tissue specific bioinks or bioprinting techniques. Further research is needed on side-by-side characterisation of bioinks with standardisation of the type and timing of biomechanical assessment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Candidate Bioinks for Extrusion 3D Bioprinting—A Systematic Review of the Literature

Tarassoli

Jessop

Jovic

et al. 2021

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of light absorbers to prevent unwanted polymerization by scattered light allows high-resolution stereolithography of multi-vascular networks as demonstrated by the development of a vascularized alveolar model [ 4 ]. These different methods are beyond the scope of this mini-review and discussed in more detail in recent review articles [ 1 , 30 , 31 ].…”

Section: Bioprinting Methods and Procedures To Build Complex Tissue Equivalents For Tissue Regeneration And Disease Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, the sedimentation of cells and particles during the printing process is difficult to control ( Figure 1 ). The pros and cons of different bioprinting technologies are discussed in recent review articles in more detail [ 1 , 2 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D bioprinting: novel approaches for engineering complex human tissue equivalents and drug testing

Hagenbuchner

Nothdurfter

Ausserlechner

2021

Essays in Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional approaches in drug development involve testing on 2D-cultured mammalian cells, followed by experiments in rodents. Although this is the common strategy, it has significant drawbacks: in 2D cell culture with human cells, the cultivation at normoxic conditions on a plastic or glass surface is an artificial situation that significantly changes energy metabolism, shape and intracellular signaling, which in turn directly affects drug response. On the other hand, rodents as the most frequently used animal models have evolutionarily separated from primates about 100 million years ago, with significant differences in physiology, which frequently leads to results not reproducible in humans. As an alternative, spheroid technology and micro-organoids have evolved in the last decade to provide 3D context for cells similar to native tissue. However, organoids used for drug testing are usually just in the 50–100 micrometers range and thereby too small to mimic micro-environmental tissue conditions such as limited nutrient and oxygen availability. An attractive alternative offers 3D bioprinting as this allows fabrication of human tissue equivalents from scratch with hollow structures for perfusion and strict spatiotemporal control over the deposition of cells and extracellular matrix proteins. Thereby, tissue surrogates with defined geometry are fabricated that offer unique opportunities in exploring cellular cross-talk, mechanobiology and morphogenesis. These tissue-equivalents are also very attractive tools in drug testing, as bioprinting enables standardized production, parallelization, and application-tailored design of human tissue, of human disease models and patient-specific tissue avatars. This review, therefore, summarizes recent advances in 3D bioprinting technology and its application for drug screening.

show abstract

“…The crucial point for bioprinting is choosing the proper bioprinting strategy and designing a biocompatible, instructive, and supportive bioink for the desired application ( Gungor-Ozkerim et al, 2018 ; Ji and Guvendiren, 2021 ). Gelation kinetics, viscoelastic properties of biomaterial inks, and fabrication time directly influence the resolution, printing fidelity, and cell viability in the bioprinted constructs ( Malda et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Biofabrication Vs Organ-on-a-chip: Characteristic Advantages Limitations and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling Current Biomedical Challenges With Frontier Biofabrication and Organ-On-A-Chip Technologies

Celikkin

Presutti

Maiullari

et al. 2021

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, biomedical research has significantly boomed in the academia and industrial sectors, and it is expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace in the future. An in-depth analysis of such growth is not trivial, given the intrinsic multidisciplinary nature of biomedical research. Nevertheless, technological advances are among the main factors which have enabled such progress. In this review, we discuss the contribution of two state-of-the-art technologies–namely biofabrication and organ-on-a-chip–in a selection of biomedical research areas. We start by providing an overview of these technologies and their capacities in fabricating advanced in vitro tissue/organ models. We then analyze their impact on addressing a range of current biomedical challenges. Ultimately, we speculate about their future developments by integrating these technologies with other cutting-edge research fields such as artificial intelligence and big data analysis.

show abstract

Complex 3D bioprinting methods

Cited by 62 publications

References 196 publications

Candidate Bioinks for Extrusion 3D Bioprinting—A Systematic Review of the Literature

Candidate Bioinks for Extrusion 3D Bioprinting—A Systematic Review of the Literature

3D bioprinting: novel approaches for engineering complex human tissue equivalents and drug testing

Tackling Current Biomedical Challenges With Frontier Biofabrication and Organ-On-A-Chip Technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About