4.7 Review

The bioink: A comprehensive review on bioprintable materials

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVANCES
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 217-239

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.12.006

Keywords

Bioink; Bioprinting; Hydrogels; Cell aggregates; Microcarriers; Decellularized matrix components; Tissue and organ biofabrication

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation CMMI [1349716, 1462232]
  2. Osteology Foundation [15042]
  3. Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at the Penn State University
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1600118, 1349716] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1624515, 1462232] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses bioink, bioprintable materials used in three dimensional (3D) bioprinting processes, where cells and other biologics are deposited in a spatially controlled pattern to fabricate living tissues and organs. It presents the first comprehensive review of existing bioink types including hydrogels, cell aggregates, microcarriers and decellularized matrix components used in extrusion-,droplet- and laser-based bioprinting processes. A detailed comparison of these bioink materials is conducted in terms of supporting bioprinting modalities and bioprintability, cell viability and proliferation, biomimicry, resolution, affordability, scalability, practicality, mechanical and structural integrity, bioprinting and post-bioprinting maturation times, tissue fusion and formation post-implantation, degradation characteristics, commercial availability, immune-compatibility, and application areas. The paper then discusses current limitations of bioink materials and presents the future prospects to the reader. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available