Comparison of biomaterial-dependent and -independent bioprinting methods for cardiovascular medicine

Leni Moldovan, Clifford M. Babbey, Michael P. Murphy, Nicanor I. Moldovan

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is an increasing need and unique opportunities for the development of novel and more powerful tissue engineering methods, among which the 3D bioprinting is one of the most promising. However, after decades of incubation, ingenuous efforts and early success, biomaterial-dependent 3D bioprinting, although showing steady progress, is slow to deliver the expected clinical results. For this reason, alternative ‘scaffold-free’ 3D bioprinting methods are being developed in parallel at an accelerated pace. In this opinion paper we discuss comparatively the two approaches, with specific examples drawn from the cardiovascular field. Moving the emphasis away from competition, we show that the two platforms have similar goals but evolve in complementary technological niches. We conclude that the biomaterial-dependent bioprinting is better suited for tasks requiring faster, larger, anatomically-true, cell-homogenous and matrix-rich constructs, while the scaffold-free biofabrication is more adequate for cell-heterogeneous, matrix-poor, complex and smaller constructs, but requiring longer preparation time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)124-131
Number of pages8
JournalCurrent Opinion in Biomedical Engineering
Volume2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2017

Fingerprint

Bioprinting
Biocompatible Materials
Biomaterials
Scaffolds
Medicine
Tissue engineering
Tissue Engineering

Keywords

  • Biomaterials
  • Bioprinting
  • Cell spheroids
  • Kenzan method
  • Scaffold-free
  • Tissue engineering

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Bioengineering
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Biomaterials
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Comparison of biomaterial-dependent and -independent bioprinting methods for cardiovascular medicine. / Moldovan, Leni; Babbey, Clifford M.; Murphy, Michael P.; Moldovan, Nicanor I.

In: Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 2, 06.2017, p. 124-131.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{d05abcf64e334ca8b5896f7753787d78,
title = "Comparison of biomaterial-dependent and -independent bioprinting methods for cardiovascular medicine",
abstract = "There is an increasing need and unique opportunities for the development of novel and more powerful tissue engineering methods, among which the 3D bioprinting is one of the most promising. However, after decades of incubation, ingenuous efforts and early success, biomaterial-dependent 3D bioprinting, although showing steady progress, is slow to deliver the expected clinical results. For this reason, alternative ‘scaffold-free’ 3D bioprinting methods are being developed in parallel at an accelerated pace. In this opinion paper we discuss comparatively the two approaches, with specific examples drawn from the cardiovascular field. Moving the emphasis away from competition, we show that the two platforms have similar goals but evolve in complementary technological niches. We conclude that the biomaterial-dependent bioprinting is better suited for tasks requiring faster, larger, anatomically-true, cell-homogenous and matrix-rich constructs, while the scaffold-free biofabrication is more adequate for cell-heterogeneous, matrix-poor, complex and smaller constructs, but requiring longer preparation time.",
keywords = "Biomaterials, Bioprinting, Cell spheroids, Kenzan method, Scaffold-free, Tissue engineering",
author = "Leni Moldovan and Babbey, {Clifford M.} and Murphy, {Michael P.} and Moldovan, {Nicanor I.}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.cobme.2017.05.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "124--131",
journal = "Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering",
issn = "2468-4511",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of biomaterial-dependent and -independent bioprinting methods for cardiovascular medicine

AU - Moldovan, Leni

AU - Babbey, Clifford M.

AU - Murphy, Michael P.

AU - Moldovan, Nicanor I.

PY - 2017/6

Y1 - 2017/6

N2 - There is an increasing need and unique opportunities for the development of novel and more powerful tissue engineering methods, among which the 3D bioprinting is one of the most promising. However, after decades of incubation, ingenuous efforts and early success, biomaterial-dependent 3D bioprinting, although showing steady progress, is slow to deliver the expected clinical results. For this reason, alternative ‘scaffold-free’ 3D bioprinting methods are being developed in parallel at an accelerated pace. In this opinion paper we discuss comparatively the two approaches, with specific examples drawn from the cardiovascular field. Moving the emphasis away from competition, we show that the two platforms have similar goals but evolve in complementary technological niches. We conclude that the biomaterial-dependent bioprinting is better suited for tasks requiring faster, larger, anatomically-true, cell-homogenous and matrix-rich constructs, while the scaffold-free biofabrication is more adequate for cell-heterogeneous, matrix-poor, complex and smaller constructs, but requiring longer preparation time.

AB - There is an increasing need and unique opportunities for the development of novel and more powerful tissue engineering methods, among which the 3D bioprinting is one of the most promising. However, after decades of incubation, ingenuous efforts and early success, biomaterial-dependent 3D bioprinting, although showing steady progress, is slow to deliver the expected clinical results. For this reason, alternative ‘scaffold-free’ 3D bioprinting methods are being developed in parallel at an accelerated pace. In this opinion paper we discuss comparatively the two approaches, with specific examples drawn from the cardiovascular field. Moving the emphasis away from competition, we show that the two platforms have similar goals but evolve in complementary technological niches. We conclude that the biomaterial-dependent bioprinting is better suited for tasks requiring faster, larger, anatomically-true, cell-homogenous and matrix-rich constructs, while the scaffold-free biofabrication is more adequate for cell-heterogeneous, matrix-poor, complex and smaller constructs, but requiring longer preparation time.

KW - Biomaterials

KW - Bioprinting

KW - Cell spheroids

KW - Kenzan method

KW - Scaffold-free

KW - Tissue engineering

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044171761&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044171761&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cobme.2017.05.009

DO - 10.1016/j.cobme.2017.05.009

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85044171761

VL - 2

SP - 124

EP - 131

JO - Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering

JF - Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering

SN - 2468-4511

ER -