ArticleBiotechnology progress
Development of multiparametric bioprinting method for generation of 3D printed cell-laden structures.
Article in Biotechnology progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Technological Innovation to Clinical Translation: Progress and Challenges in 3D Bioprinting for the Development of Breast Cancer Bone Metastasis Models.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Modeling of Biomechanical and Functional Parameters of Hydrogel-Cell Composites Fabricated by 3D Bioprinting Using AI-Supported Approach.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Head and Neck 3D Bioprinting-A Review on Recent Advancements in Soft Tissue 3D Bioprinting and Medical Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The organ transplantation field requires new approaches for replacing and regenerating tissues due to the lack of adequate transplant methods. Three-dimensional (3D) extrusion-based bioprinting is a rapid prototyping approach that can engineer 3D scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. In this process, 3D printed cell-based constructs, consisting of biomaterials, growth factors, and cells, are formed by the extrusion of bioinks from nozzles. However, extrusion applies shear stresses to cells, often leading to cellular damage or membrane rupture. To address this limitation, herein, we developed and optimized a 3D bioprinting approach by evaluating the effect of key extrusion-based 3D bioprinting parameters-bioink viscosity, nozzle size, shape, and printing speed-on cell viability. Our results revealed that cells printed in higher-viscosity bioinks, with smaller, cylindrical nozzles, exhibited lower viability due to their exposure to high shear stresses. Translational flow speed had a cell-dependent impact, as different cell types have different sensitivities to the magnitude and duration of shear stress inside the nozzle. Overall, evaluating these parameters could facilitate the development of 3D high-resolution bioprinted constructs for tissue regeneration applications, offering a more efficient alternative to traditional fabrication methods, which are often labor intensive, expensive, and repetitive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.