The bioprinting roadmap

Sun, Wei; Starly, Binil; Daly, Andrew C.; Burdick, Jason A.; Groll, Juergen; Skeldon, Gregor; Shu, Wenmiao; Sakai, Yasuyuki; Shinohara, Masanao; Nishikawa, Masaki; Jang, Jinah; Cho, Dong‐Woo; Nie, Minghao; Ostrovidov, Serge; Kamm, Roger D.; Mironov, Vladimir; Moroni, Lorenzo; Özbolat, İbrahim T.

doi:10.1088/1758-5090/ab5158

Cited by 338 publications

(288 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

286

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these strategies, extrusion-based bioprinting has been the most applicable in the field of tissue engineering due to its facility in printing bioactive bioinks [ 2 ]. Other modalities such as inkjet, laser, and stereolithography-based bioprinting have been developed and increasingly used in tissue engineering applications over the past decade, but they typically introduce some complex functionality and at times run at a higher cost than the extrusion technique [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioprintability: Physiomechanical and Biological Requirements of Materials for 3D Bioprinting Processes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is an additive manufacturing process that utilizes various biomaterials that either contain or interact with living cells and biological systems with the goal of fabricating functional tissue or organ mimics, which will be referred to as bioinks. These bioinks are typically hydrogel-based hybrid systems with many specific features and requirements. The characterizing and fine tuning of bioink properties before, during, and after printing are therefore essential in developing reproducible and stable bioprinted constructs. To date, myriad computational methods, mechanical testing, and rheological evaluations have been used to predict, measure, and optimize bioinks properties and their printability, but none are properly standardized. There is a lack of robust universal guidelines in the field for the evaluation and quantification of bioprintability. In this review, we introduced the concept of bioprintability and discussed the significant roles of various physiomechanical and biological processes in bioprinting fidelity. Furthermore, different quantitative and qualitative methodologies used to assess bioprintability will be reviewed, with a focus on the processes related to pre, during, and post printing. Establishing fully characterized, functional bioink solutions would be a big step towards the effective clinical applications of bioprinted products.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioprintability: Physiomechanical and Biological Requirements of Materials for 3D Bioprinting Processes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The microfluidic approach we employed, uses just 20-35 µl of cell suspension per printing run. Such a small volume is beneficial when constructing microtissues from limited cell sources, allowing much smaller tissue constructs to be generated, compared to common bioprinting approaches 2 . As an additional benefit, the cells are maintained in growth media, requiring minimal cell handling and minimising transfer losses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D micro-organisation printing of mammalian cells to generate biological tissues

Jeffries¹,

Xu²,

Lobovkina³

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significant strides have been made in the development of in vitro systems for disease modelling. However, the requirement of microenvironment control has placed limitations on the generation of relevant models. Herein, we present a biological tissue printing approach that employs open-volume microfluidics to position individual cells in complex 2D and 3D patterns, as well as in single cell arrays. The variety of bioprinted cell types employed, including skin epithelial (HaCaT), skin cancer (A431), liver cancer (Hep G2), and fibroblast (3T3-J2) cells, all of which exhibited excellent viability and survivability, allowing printed structures to rapidly develop into confluent tissues. To demonstrate a simple 2D oncology model, A431 and HaCaT cells were printed and grown into tissues. Furthermore, a basic skin model was established to probe drug response. 3D tissue formation was demonstrated by co-printing Hep G2 and 3T3-J2 cells onto an established fibroblast layer, the functionality of which was probed by measuring albumin production, and was found to be higher in comparison to both 2D and monoculture approaches. Bioprinting of primary cells was tested using acutely isolated primary rat dorsal root ganglia neurons, which survived and established processes. The presented technique offers a novel open-volume microfluidics approach to bioprint cells for the generation of biological tissues.

show abstract

“…Recently, this research group fabricated the esophagus-like tubular structure without scaffold using the multicellular spheroids that maturated during several periods in the bioreactor to create the rigid organoids. 3D bioprinting technology has been emerging as a promising approach to facilitate complex structures and spatial cell positioning in tubular tissue engineering [112,113]. Among the various 3D bioprinting techniques (e.g., extrusion-based, ink-jet, laser-assisted, stereolithography-based 3D bioprinting), extrusion-based 3D bioprinting has been one of the most utilized for creating the tubular structure because it is relatively convenient for the installation of the system and availability of a wide range of biomaterials.…”

Section: Recent Design Approaches For Engineering Tubular Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Bioprinting Strategies for the Regeneration of Functional Tubular Tissues and Organs

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is difficult to fabricate tubular-shaped tissues and organs (e.g., trachea, blood vessel, and esophagus tissue) with traditional biofabrication techniques (e.g., electrospinning, cell-sheet engineering, and mold-casting) because these have complicated multiple processes. In addition, the tubular-shaped tissues and organs have their own design with target-specific mechanical and biological properties. Therefore, the customized geometrical and physiological environment is required as one of the most critical factors for functional tissue regeneration. 3D bioprinting technology has been receiving attention for the fabrication of patient-tailored and complex-shaped free-form architecture with high reproducibility and versatility. Printable biocomposite inks that can facilitate to build tissue constructs with polymeric frameworks and biochemical microenvironmental cues are also being actively developed for the reconstruction of functional tissue. In this review, we delineated the state-of-the-art of 3D bioprinting techniques specifically for tubular tissue and organ regeneration. In addition, this review described biocomposite inks, such as natural and synthetic polymers. Several described engineering approaches using 3D bioprinting techniques and biocomposite inks may offer beneficial characteristics for the physiological mimicry of human tubular tissues and organs.

show abstract

The bioprinting roadmap

Cited by 338 publications

References 85 publications

Bioprintability: Physiomechanical and Biological Requirements of Materials for 3D Bioprinting Processes

Bioprintability: Physiomechanical and Biological Requirements of Materials for 3D Bioprinting Processes

3D micro-organisation printing of mammalian cells to generate biological tissues

3D Bioprinting Strategies for the Regeneration of Functional Tubular Tissues and Organs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About