Evidence mapPaperPMID 38845855Full record

ReviewRegenerative biomaterials2024

Advances in 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine applications.

Konstantinos Loukelis, Nikos Koutsomarkos, Antonios G Mikos, Maria Chatzinikolaidou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regenerative biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 3D Bioprinting Strategies in Autoimmune Disease Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Konstantinos LoukelisDepartment of Materials Science and Technology, University of Crete, Heraklion 70013, Greece.
Nikos KoutsomarkosDepartment of Materials Science and Technology, University of Crete, Heraklion 70013, Greece.
Antonios G MikosDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Maria ChatzinikolaidouDepartment of Materials Science and Technology, University of Crete, Heraklion 70013, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2749-2506

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofabrication techniques allow for the construction of biocompatible and biofunctional structures composed from biomaterials, cells and biomolecules. Bioprinting is an emerging 3D printing method which utilizes biomaterial-based mixtures with cells and other biological constituents into printable suspensions known as bioinks. Coupled with automated design protocols and based on different modes for droplet deposition, 3D bioprinters are able to fabricate hydrogel-based objects with specific architecture and geometrical properties, providing the necessary environment that promotes cell growth and directs cell differentiation towards application-related lineages. For the preparation of such bioinks, various water-soluble biomaterials have been employed, including natural and synthetic biopolymers, and inorganic materials. Bioprinted constructs are considered to be one of the most promising avenues in regenerative medicine due to their native organ biomimicry. For a successful application, the bioprinted constructs should meet particular criteria such as optimal biological response, mechanical properties similar to the target tissue, high levels of reproducibility and printing fidelity, but also increased upscaling capability. In this review, we highlight the most recent advances in bioprinting, focusing on the regeneration of various tissues including bone, cartilage, cardiovascular, neural, skin and other organs such as liver, kidney, pancreas and lungs. We discuss the rapidly developing co-culture bioprinting systems used to resemble the complexity of tissues and organs and the crosstalk between various cell populations towards regeneration. Moreover, we report on the basic physical principles governing 3D bioprinting, and the ideal bioink properties based on the biomaterials' regenerative potential. We examine and critically discuss the present status of 3D bioprinting regarding its applicability and current limitations that need to be overcome to establish it at the forefront of artificial organ production and transplantation.

Indexed as

biofabricationbioinksbonecardiovascularcartilagekidneyliverlungsneuralpancreasskintissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID38845855
PMCPMC11153344

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.