ReviewJournal of biological engineering2026
Digital light processing bioprinting: bioink innovations and applications in tissue and organ regeneration.
Review in Journal of biological engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital light processing (DLP) bioprinting offers superior spatial resolution, rapid printing speed, and gentle cell handling compared to extrusion- and inkjet-based methods. By enabling layer-by-layer photopolymerization through projected light patterns, DLP provides precise control over microscale architecture, making it highly suitable for fabricating tissue- and organ-specific constructs. However, the true potential of DLP bioprinting depends not only on optical precision but also on the development of photocurable bioinks that translate light-driven fabrication into biologically relevant outcomes. Recent advances in bioink development (including methacrylated natural polymers, decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM)-derived hydrogels, hybrid nanocomposites, and cell-laden formulations) have significantly expanded the biofabrication landscape. These materials enable the creation of constructs that closely mimic native tissues such as corneas, cartilage, liver, and skeletal muscle in terms of structural and biochemical complexity. Furthermore, strategies such as photoabsorber modulation, rheological tuning, and dual crosslinking mechanisms have improved print fidelity and cytocompatibility. Despite this progress, translational barriers remain. Limited vascularization, poor scalability, and insufficient functional longevity continue to restrict clinical adoption. This review critically examines how bioink design paradigms in DLP bioprinting redefine the interface between light-based engineering and biological function. We also discuss emerging trends in stimuli-responsive and cell-instructive bioinks, offering insights into how to bridge laboratory innovation with clinically relevant tissue regeneration.
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.