In regenerative medicine, three-dimensional (3D) printing provides precise spatial control over the fabrication of complex, biomimetic tissue constructs, enabling the production of architecturally defined and functionally tailored scaffolds. By enabling precise layer-by-layer deposition of cells, biomaterials, and bioactive compounds, 3D printing overcomes many limitations associated with conventional scaffold fabrication methods. This approach facilitates the development of tailored structures that mimic the mechanical, biological, and structural characteristics of native tissues, thereby enhancing cellular organization, proliferation, and differentiation. Extensive research in tissue engineering has led to the development of 3D-printed scaffolds for the regeneration of vascular, skin, bone, cartilage, and soft tissues. Advances in bioink formulations—including growth factor-loaded systems, decellularized extracellular matrix components, and natural and synthetic polymers—have further improved tissue-specific functionality. Moreover, multimaterial and multiscale printing strategies enable the fabrication of heterogeneous constructs with controlled porosity, mechanical gradients, and spatially regulated biological cues. Although vascularized tissue constructs remain a major challenge for clinical translation, recent bioprinting advancements have significantly accelerated progress in this area. Integration of computer-aided design with patient-specific imaging data has further strengthened the potential of 3D printing for personalized regenerative therapies. Despite these advances, challenges related to scalability, regulatory approval, and long-term functionality persist. Nevertheless, continued progress in printing technologies, biomaterials, and regulatory and standards frameworks is expected to drive the clinical adoption of 3D printing. Ultimately, 3D printing represents a transformative approach in tissue engineering, redefining strategies for functional tissue regeneration and translational regenerative medicine.
Sharma et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: