Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review analyzes advancements in extrusion bioprinting for wound healing, highlighting bioink innovations and functionalization techniques.
Skin injuries and chronic wounds remain major clinical and socioeconomic burdens, as existing therapies, including dressings, grafts, and engineered skin substitutes, fail to fully reproduce the structural, functional, and biological complexity of native skin. Extrusion‐based bioprinting (EBB) has emerged as a versatile biofabrication platform capable of precisely depositing bioinks composed of biomaterials, cells, and bioactive agents to generate patient‐specific, biomimetic skin constructs. Here, we present a state‐of‐the‐art and forward‐looking overview of EBB for wound healing, encompassing printing strategies, bioink development with an emphasis on natural biopolymers, and advanced construct functionalization. Distinct from prior literature, this review provides an in‐depth and systematic analysis of multifunctional bioink and construct functionalization approaches, including antibacterial, electroconductive, piezoelectric, and controlled‐release systems. By placing these functional modalities within the context of EBB‐specific design constraints and biological performance, we elucidate how functionalization can actively modulate the wound microenvironment and accelerate healing. The review further integrates recent advances in in situ and multi‐dimensional (3D/4D/5D/6D) bioprinting, machine learning–assisted fabrication, hybrid platforms combining EBB with microfluidics and electrospinning, and progress toward clinical translation and commercialization. Finally, we discuss current challenges, from bioink optimization to regulatory hurdles, and outline future directions for smart, adaptive, and personalized bioprinting approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Le et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: