This review shows advancements in 3D food printing improve personalized nutrition and waste reduction, indicating a promising future in food technology.
The objective of this review is to critically analyze recent advances in 3D printing technologies reported between 2015 and 2025, with emphasis on printing techniques, printable materials, process control, and emerging 4D and 5D food printing concepts. This review systematically examines major technological dimensions of 3D food printing (3DFP), including extrusion-based, inkjet, and binder jetting techniques, rheological and formulation requirements of food inks. Emerging concepts such as 4D and 5D printing, along with advancements in material science, suggest that 3DFP will evolve into a more sophisticated and versatile technology. Conventional 3D printing typically produces planar structures with limited mechanical strength and often requires additional support materials to fabricate complex geometries such as curved or overhanging forms. In contrast, 4D printing introduces stimuli-responsive behavior, enabling post-printing morphological transformations. These limitations can be further addressed by 5D printing, which employs three translational motions and two rotational axes to fabricate complex architecture without the need for auxiliary support materials. Despite its potential, 3DFP faces several challenges, including the need for improved printability, consumer acceptance, and regulatory compliance. Nevertheless, this innovative approach offers numerous advantages, such as the ability to create personalized nutrition plans, specialized culinary designs, and more efficient food distribution networks. Additionally, it fosters sustainable procurement methods and contributes to reducing food waste. Overcoming these challenges remains crucial for the seamless integration of 3DFP into mainstream food production. To align with consumer preferences, safety standards, and sustainability goals, ongoing research is essential towards a more efficient future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bisht et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: