Cited by 7533D Printing in Biomedical ResearchTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineHydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications

Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine

Open access
Moroni, Lorenzo, Burdick, Jason A., Highley, Christopher, Lee, Sang Jin, Morimoto, Yuya, Takeuchi, Shoji, Yoo, James J.·2018·Nature Reviews Materials

Abstract

Organs are complex systems composed of different cells, proteins and signalling molecules that are arranged in a highly ordered structure to orchestrate a myriad of functions in our body. Biofabrication strategies can be applied to engineer 3D tissue models in vitro by mimicking the structure and function of native tissue through the precise deposition and assembly of materials and cells. This approach allows the spatiotemporal control over cell–cell and cell–extracellular matrix communication and thus the recreation of tissue-like structures. In this Review, we examine biofabrication strategies for the construction of functional tissue replacements and organ models, focusing on the development of biomaterials, such as supramolecular and photosensitive materials, that can be processed using biofabrication techniques. We highlight bioprinted and bioassembled tissue models and survey biofabrication techniques for their potential to recreate complex tissue properties, such as shape, vasculature and specific functionalities. Finally, we discuss challenges, such as scalability and the foreign body response, and opportunities in the field and provide an outlook to the future of biofabrication in regenerative medicine. Biofabrication can be applied to replicate tissues and organs for regenerative medicine and for the creation of 3D in vitro tissue models. In this Review, the recent advances in biomaterials and biofabrication technologies are discussed, and challenges and opportunities are highlighted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41578-018-0006-y

Cites

242 of 242 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Commonly chosen materials include Matrigel, other natural biomaterials (gelatin, fibrin, collagen, alginate, chitosan, hyaluronic acid), and synthetic polymers (PEG, PCL).

    “Commonly chosen materials include Matrigel, other natural biomaterials (e.g., gelatin, fi brin, collagen, alginate, chitosan, hyaluronic acid), and synthetic polymers (e.g., PEG, PCL) [40,87].”

    From 3D In Vitro Model (R)evolution: Unveiling Tumor–Stroma Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Natural biomaterials section (page unavailable) lists collagen, gelatin, alginate and hyaluronic acid as bioink materials, while other sections describe Matrigel, PEG and PCL in biofabrication applications. Our copy does not substantiate fibrin as a commonly chosen material, and chitosan appears only in a reference title rather than in the review’s discussion of material choices. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Common limitations of 3D bioprinting include slow printing speeds, development of nontoxic and printable bioinks, and insufficient reproducibility to create standard models.

    “Common limitations, however, include slow printing speeds, development of nontoxic and printable bioinks, and insuf fi cient reproducibility to create standard models [38,40].”

    From 3D In Vitro Model (R)evolution: Unveiling Tumor–Stroma Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The ‘Scalability and manufacturing time’ section identifies long manufacturing times as a limitation, while ‘Cells in bioinks’ and ‘High-viscosity and low-viscosity materials’ discuss cell toxicity and printability challenges. The paper does not identify insufficient reproducibility as a barrier to standard models; its ‘Cancer models’ section instead describes bioprinting as a way to create reproducible tumour models. Our copy provides section labels but no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Over past decades, multiple 3D bioprinting methods have been improved to allow design of complex cell-laden 3D constructs.

    “Over the past decades, multiple 3D bioprinting methods have been improved to allow the design of complex cell-laden 3D constructs.”
  • Each 3D bioprinting technology is application-specific and choice depends on type of bioink used.

    “Each of these technologies is application-speci fi c and the choice depends on the type of bioink used [40,87].”
  • Laser-assisted bioprinting uses high-intensity laser to deposit less-viscous bioinks for cell patterning, preserving high cell viability.

    “In laser-assisted bioprinting, a high-intensity laser is used to deposit less-viscous bioinks for cell patterning, thereby preserving high cell viability.”

    From 3D In Vitro Model (R)evolution: Unveiling Tumor–Stroma Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Photodegradable materials section describes using a pulsed laser to pattern channels in existing hydrogels, not to deposit bioinks. The High-viscosity and low-viscosity materials and Cells in bioinks sections discuss printing low-viscosity materials and maintaining cell viability, but do not connect either to laser-assisted deposition. Searches for laser-assisted bioprinting and laser printing found no passage establishing the claimed method or viability outcome; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 243 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [63]Levato R The bio in the ink: cartilage regeneration with bioprintable hydrogels and articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells. Acta Biomaterialia (2017). PMC7116023 28782725
  2. [64]Shi W Structurally and functionally optimized silk-fibroin-gelatin scaffold using 3D printing to repair cartilage injury in vitro and in vivo. Adv. Mater 29, 1701089 (2017). 28585319

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moroni, L., Burdick, J. A., Highley, C., Lee, S. J., Morimoto, Y., Takeuchi, S., & Yoo, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo (JP)
Corresponding author
Moroni, Lorenzo
Venue
Nature Reviews Materials
Published
2018-04-26
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
21-37
ISSN
2058-8437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2799893835
Cited by
753
References
243
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • AO Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (16H06329)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41EB023833)
  • H2020 European Research Council (637308)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications
Keywords
biofabrication, regenerative medicine, bioprinting, biomaterials, supramolecular materials, photoresponsive materials, tissue engineering, vascular system, foreign body reaction, scalability, organ models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review