Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40219306›Full record

ReviewPolymers2025

Hydrogel-Based Bioinks for Coaxial and Triaxial Bioprinting: A Review of Material Properties, Printing Techniques, and Applications.

Alma Tamunonengiofori Banigo, Laura Nauta, Bram Zoetebier, Marcel Karperien

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alma Tamunonengiofori BanigoDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology and TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2761-5219
Laura NautaDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology and TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.
Bram ZoetebierDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology and TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2994-725X
Marcel KarperienDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology and TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0751-0604

Funding

Dutch Arthritis Association LLP-025: Technovolution in Joint Repair
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional bioprinting technology has emerged as a rapidly advancing multidisciplinary field with significant potential for tissue engineering applications. This technology enables the formation of complex tissues and organs by utilizing hydrogels, with or without cells, as scaffolds or structural supports. Among various bioprinting methods, advanced bioprinting using coaxial and triaxial nozzles stands out as a promising technique. Coaxial bioprinting technique simultaneously deposits two material streams through a coaxial nozzle, enabling controlled formation of an outer shell and inner core construct. In contrast, triaxial bioprinting utilizes three material streams namely the outer shell, inner shell and inner core to fabricate more complex constructs. Despite the growing interest in 3D bioprinting, the development of suitable cell-laden bioinks for creating complex tissues remains unclear. To address this gap, a systematic review was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart, collecting 1621 papers from various databases, including Web of Science, PUBMED, SCOPUS, and Springer Link. After careful selection, 85 research articles focusing on coaxial and triaxial bioprinting were included in the review. Specifically, 77 research articles concentrated on coaxial bioprinting and 11 focused on triaxial bioprinting, with 3 covering both techniques. The search, conducted between 1 April and 30 September 2023, had no restrictions on publication date, and no meta-analyses were carried out due to the heterogeneity of studies. The primary objective of this review is to assess and identify the most commonly occurring cell-laden bioinks critical for successful advancements in bioprinting technologies. Specifically, the review focuses on delineating the commonly explored bioinks utilized in coaxial and triaxial bioprinting approaches. It focuses on evaluating the inherent merits of these bioinks, systematically comparing them while emphasizing their classifications, essential attributes, properties, and potential limitations within the domain of tissue engineering. Additionally, the review considers the applications of these bioinks, offering comprehensive insights into their efficacy and utility in the field of bioprinting technology. Overall, this review provides a comprehensive overview of some conditions of the relevant hydrogel bioinks used for coaxial and triaxial bioprinting of tissue constructs. Future research directions aimed at advancing the field are also briefly discussed.

Indexed as

bioprintingcoaxial and triaxial bioprintinghydrogel bioinkstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID40219306
PMCPMC11991663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.