4.8 Review

Evaluation of bioprinter technologies

Journal

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages 179-200

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2016.10.003

Keywords

Bioprinting; Bioprinting technologies; Bioprinters; Tissue and organ fabrication

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation CMMI [1349716, 1462232]
  2. Diabetes in Action Research and Education Foundation [426]
  3. Osteology Foundation [15-042]
  4. Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at Penn State University
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  6. Directorate For Engineering [1349716, 1624515] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  8. Directorate For Engineering [1462232, 1600118] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the first printing of biologics with cytoscribing as demonstrated by Klebe in 1986, three dimensional (3D) bioprinting has made a substantial leap forward, particularly in the last decade. It has been widely used in fabrication of living tissues for various application areas such as tissue engineering and regenerative medicine research, transplantation and clinics, pharmaceutics and high-throughput screening, and cancer research. As bioprinting has gained interest in the medical and pharmaceutical communities, the demand for bioprinters has risen substantially. A myriad of bioprinters have been developed at research institutions worldwide and several companies have emerged to commercialize advanced bioprinter technologies. This paper prefaces the evolution of the field of bioprinting and presents the first comprehensive review of existing bioprinter technologies. Here, a comparative evaluation is performed for bioprinters; limitations with the current bioprinter technologies are discussed thoroughly and future prospects of bioprinters are provided to the reader. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available