Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 93–98 | Cite as

A Review of 3D Printing Techniques and the Future in Biofabrication of Bioprinted Tissue

  • Satyajit PatraEmail author
  • Vanesa Young
Review Paper


3D printing has been around in the art, micro-engineering, and manufacturing worlds for decades. Similarly, research for traditionally engineered skin tissue has been in the works since the 1990s. As of recent years, the medical field also began to take advantage of the untapped potential of 3D printing for the biofabrication of tissue. To do so, researchers created a set of goals for fabricated tissues based on the characteristics of natural human tissues and organs. Fabricated tissue was then measured against this set of standards. Researchers were interested in not only creating tissue that functioned like natural tissues but in creating techniques for 3D printing that would print tissues quickly, efficiently, and ultimately result in the ability to mass produce fabricated tissues. Three promising methods of 3D printing emerged from their research: thermal inkjet printing with bioink, direct-write bioprinting, and organ printing using tissue spheroids. This review will discuss all three printing techniques, as well as their advantages, disadvantages, and the possibility of future advancements in the field of tissue fabrication.


3D printed tissue Biofabrication Bioprinting 


Author Contributions

SP and VY prepared the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Mironov, V., et al. (2009). Organ printing: Tissue spheroids as building blocks. Biomaterials, 30(12), 2164–2174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cui, X., et al. (2012). Thermal inkjet printing in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Recent Patents on Drug Delivery & Formulation, 6(2), 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang, C. C., et al. (2011). Direct-write bioprinting three-dimensional biohybrid systems for future regenerative therapies. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials, 98(1), 160–170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jakab, K., et al. (2008). Relating cell and tissue mechanics: Implications and applications. Developmental Dynamics, 237(9), 2438–2449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean, D. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2008). Cytoskeletal-mediated tension modulates the directed self-assembly of microtissues. Tissue Engineering Part A, 14(12), 1989–1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ozbolat, I. T., & Yu, Y. (2013). Bioprinting toward organ fabrication: Challenges and future trends. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 60(3), 691–699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, R., Nam, J., & Sun, W. (2008). Effects of dispensing pressure and nozzle diameter on cell survival from solid freeform fabrication-based direct cell writing. Tissue Engineering Part A, 14(1), 41–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, D. L., et al. (2006). Direct freeform fabrication of seeded hydrogels in arbitrary geometries. Tissue Engineering, 12(5), 1325–1335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Owczarczak, A. B., et al. (2012). Creating transient cell membrane pores using a standard inkjet printer. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 61, e3681.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jang, D., Kim, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Influence of fluid physical properties on ink-jet printability. Langmuir, 25(5), 2629–2635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan, M. S., et al. (2010). Biosurface engineering through ink jet printing. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 75(2), 441–447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christensen, K., et al. (2015). Freeform inkjet printing of cellular structures with bifurcations. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 112(5), 1047–1055.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saunders, R. E., Gough, J. E., & Derby, B. (2008). Delivery of human fibroblast cells by piezoelectric drop-on-demand inkjet printing. Biomaterials, 29(2), 193–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gao, G., & Cui, X. (2016). Three-dimensional bioprinting in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biotechnology Letters, 38(2), 203–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu, T., et al. (2013). Complex heterogeneous tissue constructs containing multiple cell types prepared by inkjet printing technology. Biomaterials, 34(1), 130–139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cui, X., et al. (2010). Cell damage evaluation of thermal inkjet printed Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 106(6), 963–969.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ventola, C. L. (2014). Medical applications for 3D printing: Current and projected uses. P T, 39(10), 704–711.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wust, S., Muller, R., & Hofmann, S. (2011). Controlled positioning of cells in biomaterials-approaches towards 3D tissue printing. Journal of Functional Biomaterials, 2(3), 119–154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lysaght, M. J., Jaklenec, A., & Deweerd, E. (2008). Great expectations: Private sector activity in tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, and stem cell therapeutics. Tissue Engineering Part A, 14(2), 305–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cui, X., et al. (2012). Direct human cartilage repair using three-dimensional bioprinting technology. Tissue Engineering Part A, 18(11–12), 1304–1312.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chou, A. I., Akintoye, S. O., & Nicoll, S. B. (2009). Photo-crosslinked alginate hydrogels support enhanced matrix accumulation by nucleus pulposus cells in vivo. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 17(10), 1377–1384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen, N., et al. (2012). Cell adhesion on an artificial extracellular matrix using aptamer-functionalized PEG hydrogels. Biomaterials, 33(5), 1353–1362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kwon, H., et al. (2016). Articular cartilage tissue engineering: The role of signaling molecules. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 73(6), 1173–1194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cui, X., & Boland, T. (2009). Human microvasculature fabrication using thermal inkjet printing technology. Biomaterials, 30(31), 6221–6227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, C. M., et al. (2004). Three-dimensional bioassembly tool for generating viable tissue-engineered constructs. Tissue Engineering, 10(9–10), 1566–1576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang, C. C., & Hoying, J. B. (2006). Directed three-dimensional growth of microvascular cells and isolated microvessel fragments. Cell Transplantation, 15(6), 533–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jakab, K., et al. (2006). Three-dimensional tissue constructs built by bioprinting. Biorheology, 43(3–4), 509–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norotte, C., et al. (2009). Scaffold-free vascular tissue engineering using bioprinting. Biomaterials, 30(30), 5910–5917.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jakab, K., et al. (2008). Tissue engineering by self-assembly of cells printed into topologically defined structures. Tissue Engineering Part A, 14(3), 413–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dellinger, J. G., Cesarano, J, 3rd, & Jamison, R. D. (2007). Robotic deposition of model hydroxyapatite scaffolds with multiple architectures and multiscale porosity for bone tissue engineering. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 82(2), 383–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee, M., Dunn, J. C., & Wu, B. M. (2005). Scaffold fabrication by indirect three-dimensional printing. Biomaterials, 26(20), 4281–4289.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith, C. M., et al. (2007). Characterizing environmental factors that impact the viability of tissue-engineered constructs fabricated by a direct-write bioassembly tool. Tissue Engineering, 13(2), 373–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gasperini, L., Mano, J. F., & Reis, R. L. (2014). Natural polymers for the microencapsulation of cells. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 11(100), 20140817.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murphy, C. M., Haugh, M. G., & O’Brien, F. J. (2010). The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 31(3), 461–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Engler, A. J., et al. (2006). Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell, 126(4), 677–689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Williams, D. F. (2008). On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials, 29(20), 2941–2953.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mason, C. (2007). Regenerative medicine 2.0. Regen Med, 2(1), 11–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Perez-Pomares, J. M., & Foty, R. A. (2006). Tissue fusion and cell sorting in embryonic development and disease: Biomedical implications. BioEssays, 28(8), 809–821.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Whitesides, G. M., & Grzybowski, B. (2002). Self-assembly at all scales. Science, 295(5564), 2418–2421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ozbolat, I. T., & Hospodiuk, M. (2016). Current advances and future perspectives in extrusion-based bioprinting. Biomaterials, 76, 321–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barralet, J., et al. (2009). Angiogenesis in calcium phosphate scaffolds by inorganic copper ion release. Tissue Engineering Part A, 15(7), 1601–1609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Borselli, C., et al. (2010). Bioactivation of collagen matrices through sustained VEGF release from PLGA microspheres. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research A, 92(1), 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American International Medical UniversityGros IsletSt. Lucia

Personalised recommendations