ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
An Overview of 3D Bioprinting Impact on Cell Viability: From Damage Assessment to Protection Solutions.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Critical Systematic Review of 3D Bioprinting in Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Modeling of Biomechanical and Functional Parameters of Hydrogel-Cell Composites Fabricated by 3D Bioprinting Using AI-Supported Approach.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Formal Optimization-Oriented Design Framework for Predictive Extrusion-Based 3D Bioprinting.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advanced additive manufacturing in orthopedics: a comprehensive review of biomaterials, structural design, biological functions and clinical technology applications.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Advances in 3D Bioprinting: Materials, Processes, and Emerging Applications.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Hydrogel Printability in Extrusion Bioprinting.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting has become a widely exploited tissue engineering technique for producing functional constructs that can mimic and replace native tissues. To this end, different printing strategies can be adopted, including inkjet-based, light-assisted, and extrusion-based bioprinting. Despite the great improvements that these innovative techniques introduce, cell viability maintenance during and after the bioprinting process remains a challenging open question. Indeed, the reduction in cell viability is generally related to several crucial conditions during printing, such as high shear stresses and a nutrient-deficient environment of printed constructs. In this work, the current literature on 3D bioprinting technologies is reviewed, focusing on the level of cell damage that can be imparted during biomaterial printing. In particular, extrusion bioprinting, extrusion-associated shear stress and its impact on cell viability are described in detail. The simulation of the bioprinting process through computational fluid dynamics is proposed as an appropriate method to analyze the parameters involved during bioprinting. Moreover, the viability of cells encapsulated into bioink is discussed, as well as literature techniques aimed at enhancing it by both biomaterial modifications and cell micro-encapsulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.