Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review evaluates strategies for scalable bioink manufacturing in bone and cartilage bioprinting, indicating implications for clinical use.
Bioprinting has emerged as a transformative platform for engineering bone and cartilage tissues; however, its clinical translation is currently limited by the lack of scalable, reproducible, and regulatory-compliant bioink manufacturing. This review provides a comprehensive evaluation of current challenges, advancements, and strategies for the scale-up of bioink manufacturing, with a specific focus on bone and cartilage bioprinting applications. The key topics addressed include mechanical performance, cell viability preservation, reproducibility, batch-to-batch consistency, sterility assurance, and regulatory compliance. Emerging methods, including bioreactor-based cell expansion, continuous bioprocessing, and hybrid biomaterials, are critically assessed for their potential to enhance scalability while maintaining biological functionality and manufacturing reproducibility. Future directions for industrial-scale bioink manufacturing are discussed with particular emphasis on manufacturing-critical requirements, including sterility assurance, endotoxin control, batch-to-batch consistency, and clearly defined release criteria, each of which is essential for regulatory approval and clinical translation. Collectively, these developments reflect a shift from manual bioink preparation toward automated, validated, and scalable manufacturing pipelines that advance the clinical deployment of patient-specific regenerative therapies for musculoskeletal applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chakraborty et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: