The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment methodologies for extrusion-based bioink printability
Open accessAbstract
Extrusion-based bioprinting is one of the leading manufacturing techniques for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Its primary limitation is the lack of materials, known as bioinks, which are suitable for the bioprinting process. The degree to which a bioink is suitable for bioprinting has been described as its ‘printability.’ However, a lack of clarity surrounding the methodologies used to evaluate a bioink’s printability, as well as the usage of the term itself, have hindered the field. This article presents a review of measures used to assess the printability of extrusion-based bioinks in an attempt to assist researchers during the bioink development process. Many different aspects of printability exist and many different measurements have been proposed as a consequence. Researchers often do not evaluate a new bioink’s printability at all, while others simply do so qualitatively. Several quantitative measures have been presented for the extrudability, shape fidelity, and printing accuracy of bioinks. Different measures have been developed even within these aspects, each testing the bioink in a slightly different way. Additionally, other relevant measures which had little or no examples of quantifiable methods are also to be considered. Looking forward, further work is needed to improve upon current assessment methodologies, to move towards a more comprehensive view of printability, and to standardize these printability measurements between researchers. Better assessment techniques will naturally lead to a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms which affect printability and better comparisons between bioinks. This in turn will help improve upon the bioink development process and the bioinks available for use in bioprinting.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Among the available techniques, extrusion-based bioprinting is the most widely used owing to its versatility and compatibility with hydrogel-based bioinks [4,5,6].”
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Although the spreading ratio (Figure 6D) tended to decrease with increasing MMT concentration, no statistically significant differences were observed among the formulations (one-way ANOVA, p = 0.117) [6,7].”
From Montmorillonite-reinforced methacrylated collagen/methacrylated silk fibroin hydrogel-based inks: rheological and physicochemical characterization for bone scaffold applications (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
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.
Citations
Cites
3D bioprinting of tissues and organs
Murphy, S. V., & Atala, A. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2958 · Cited by 7,034
Self-citationA 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity
Kang, H.-W., Lee, S. J., Ko, I. K., Kengla, C., Yoo, J. J., & Atala, A. (2016) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3413 · Cited by 2,622
Self-citation25th Anniversary Article: Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication
Malda, J., Visser, J., Melchels, F. P., Jüngst, T., Hennink, W. E., Dhert, W. J. A., Groll, J., & Hutmacher, D. W. (2013) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201302042 · Cited by 1,901
3D bioprinting for engineering complex tissues
Mandrycky, C., Wang, Z., Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2015) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.12.011 · Cited by 1,818
Markstedt, K., Mantas, A., Tournier, I., Martínez Ávila, H., Hägg, D., & Gatenholm, P. (2015) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00188 · Cited by 1,528
The bioink: A comprehensive review on bioprintable materials
Hospodiuk, M., Dey, M., Sosnoski, D. M., & Ozbolat, I. T. (2017) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.12.006 · Cited by 1,168
Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting
Hölzl, K., Lin, S., Tytgat, L., Vlierberghe, S. V., Gu, L., & Ovsianikov, A. (2016) · Biofabrication · doi:10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/032002 · Cited by 1,129
3D bioprinting for biomedical devices and tissue engineering: A review of recent trends and advances
Derakhshanfar, S., Mbeleck, R., Xu, K., Zhang, X., Zhong, W., & Xing, M. M. Q. (2018) · Bioactive Materials · doi:10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.11.008 · Cited by 1,073
Ouyang, L., Yao, R., Zhao, Y., & Sun, W. (2016) · Biofabrication · doi:10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/035020 · Cited by 1,052
3D Bioprinting of heterogeneous aortic valve conduits with alginate/gelatin hydrogels
Duan, B., Hockaday, L. A., Kang, K. H., & Butcher, J. T. (2012) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34420 · Cited by 1,005
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kraut, 2017, Influence of shear thinning and material flow on robotic dispensing of poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate/poloxamer 407 hydrogels, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 134, 45083, 10.1002/app.45083 · DOI
- Sarker, 2017, Modeling the flow behavior and flow rate of medium viscosity alginate for scaffold fabrication with a three-dimensional bioplotter, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 139, 081002, 10.1115/1.4036226 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting
Schwab, A., Levato, R., D’Este, M., Piluso, S., Eglin, D., & Malda, J. (2020) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00084 · Cited by 1,359
Rheological characterisation of ceramic inks for 3D direct ink writing: A review
del‐Mazo‐Barbara, L., & Ginebra, M. (2021) · Journal of the European Ceramic Society · doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2021.08.031 · Cited by 482
Zhang, Y. S., Haghiashtiani, G., Hübscher, T., Kelly, D. J., Lee, J. M., Lütolf, M. P., McAlpine, M. C., Yeong, W. Y., Zenobi‐Wong, M., & Malda, J. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00073-8 · Cited by 428
Daly, A. C., Prendergast, M. E., Hughes, A. J., & Burdick, J. A. (2021) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.002 · Cited by 354
Collagen- and hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels and their biomedical applications
Xu, Q., Torres, J. E., Hakim, M. H., Babiak, P. M., Pal, P., Battistoni, C. M., Nguyen, M. B., Panitch, A., Solorio, L., & Liu, J. C. (2021) · Materials Science and Engineering R Reports · doi:10.1016/j.mser.2021.100641 · Cited by 337
Metadata
- Authors
- Gillispie, G., Prim, P., Copus, J., Fisher, J., Mikos, A. G., Yoo, J. J., Atala, A., & Lee, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering & Sciences (US)
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Rice University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Sang Jin
- ORCID
- Venue
- Biofabrication
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2020-02-19
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 022003
- ISSN
- 1758-5082 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-5090
- PMC
- PMC7039534
- OpenAlex
- W3000783277
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 21
- FWCI
- 4.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biofabrication (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (1P41EB023833-346 01)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
- Keywords
- extrusion-based bioprinting, extrudability, shape fidelity, printing accuracy, tissue engineering scaffolds
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Humans, Tissue Engineering, Tissue Scaffolds, Bioprinting, Printing, Three-Dimensional
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
