3d printing research report

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

‘Harvard Thinking’: Is AI friend or foe? Wrong question.

Getting ahead of dyslexia

Why AI fairness conversations must include disabled people

In this 3D printing process, the little dot of blue light triggers a chemical reaction that makes the resin harden into plastic.

Credit: Tracy H. Schloemer and Arynn O. Gallegos

Making 3D printing truly 3D

Juan Siliezar

Harvard Staff Writer

Researchers from Rowland Institute eliminate need for 2D layering

Don’t be fooled by the name. While 3D printers do print tangible objects (and quite well), how they do the job doesn’t actually happen in 3D, but rather in regular old 2D.

Working to change that is a group of former and current researchers from the Rowland Institute at Harvard.

First, here’s how 3D printing works: The printers lay down flat layers of resin, which will harden into plastic after being exposed to laser light, on top of each other, again and again from the bottom to the top. Eventually, the object, such as a skull , takes shape. But if a piece of the print overhangs, like a bridge or a wing of a plane, it requires some type of flat support structure to actually print, or the resin will fall apart.

The researchers present a method to help the printers live up to their names and deliver a “true” 3D form of printing. In a new paper in Nature, they describe a technique of volumetric 3D printing that goes beyond the bottom-up, layered approach. The process eliminates the need for support structures because the resin it creates is self-supporting.

“What we were wondering is, could we actually print entire volumes without needing to do all these complicated steps?” said Daniel N. Congreve, an assistant professor at Stanford and former fellow at the Rowland Institute, where the bulk of the research took place. “Our goal was to use simply a laser moving around to truly pattern in three dimensions and not be limited by this sort of layer-by-layer nature of things.”

The key component in their novel design is turning red light into blue light by adding what’s known as an upconversion process to the resin, the light reactive liquid used in 3D printers that hardens into plastic.

In 3D printing, resin hardens in a flat and straight line along the path of the light. Here, the researchers use nano capsules to add chemicals so that it only reacts to a certain kind of light — a blue light at the focal point of the laser that’s created by the upconversion process. This beam is scanned in three dimensions, so it prints that way without needing to be layered onto something. The resulting resin has a greater viscosity than in the traditional method, so it can stand support-free once it’s printed.

“We designed the resin, we designed the system so that the red light does nothing,” Congreve said. “But that little dot of blue light triggers a chemical reaction that makes the resin harden and turn into plastic. Basically, what that means is you have this laser passing all the way through the system and only at that little blue do you get the polymerization, [only there] do you get the printing happening. We just scan that blue dot around in three dimensions and anywhere that blue dot hits it polymerizes and you get your 3D printing.”

The researchers used their printer to produce a 3D Harvard logo, Stanford logo, and a small boat, a standard yet difficult test for 3D printers because of the boat’s small size and fine details like overhanging portholes and open cabin spaces.

The researchers, who included Christopher Stokes from the Rowland Institute, plan to continue developing the system for speed and to refine it to print even finer details. The potential of volumetric 3D printing is seen as a game changer, because it will eliminate the need for complex support structures and dramatically speed up the process when it reaches its full potential. Think of the “replicator” from “Star Trek” that materializes objects all at once.

But right now, the researchers know they have quite a ways to go.

“We’re really just starting to scratch the surface of what this new technique could do,” Congreve said.

Share this article

You might like.

In podcast, a lawyer, computer scientist, and statistician debate ethics of artificial intelligence

Harvard lab’s research suggests at-risk kids can be identified before they ever struggle in school

Tech offers promise to help yet too often perpetuates ableism, say researchers. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Harvard announces return to required testing

Leading researchers cite strong evidence that testing expands opportunity

For all the other Willie Jacks

‘Reservation Dogs’ star Paulina Alexis offers behind-the-scenes glimpse of hit show, details value of Native representation

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 18 August 2020

3D bioprinting of cells, tissues and organs

• Madhuri Dey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9523-8083 1 , 2 &
• Ibrahim T. Ozbolat 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  

Scientific Reports volume  10 , Article number:  14023 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

53k Accesses

144 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Experimental models of disease
• Regeneration
• Tissue engineering

3D bioprinting has emerged as a promising new approach for fabricating complex biological constructs in the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. It aims to alleviate the hurdles of conventional tissue engineering methods by precise and controlled layer-by-layer assembly of biomaterials in a desired 3D pattern. The 3D bioprinting of cells, tissues, and organs Collection at Scientific Reports brings together a myriad of studies portraying the capabilities of different bioprinting modalities. This Collection amalgamates research aimed at 3D bioprinting organs for fulfilling demands of organ shortage, cell patterning for better tissue fabrication, and building better disease models.

The discovery of a 3D printer dates back to early 1980s when Charles Hull, an American engineer, built the 1st 3D printer, capable of creating solid objects by following a computer-aided design (CAD). The printer deposited successive layers of an acrylic-based photopolymer which was then simultaneously crosslinked by UV light, thus creating a solid 3D object. This simple technology, called stereolithography (SLA), revolutionized the additive manufacturing industry. Gradually, by the late 1990s, 3D printing made its appearance in healthcare where surgeons began 3D printing dental implants, custom prosthetics, and kidney bladders. Subsequently the term ‘3D bioprinting’ emerged where the material being printed, called ‘bioink’ 1 , consisted of living cells, biomaterials, or active biomolecules. Analogous to additive manufacturing, 3D bioprinting involves layer-by-layer deposition of bioink to create 3D structures, such as tissues and organs 2 .

3D bioprinting can be broadly categorized as either extrusion 3 , droplet 4 , or laser-based bioprinting. Extrusion based bioprinting employs mechanical, pneumatic or solenoid dispenser systems to deposit bioinks in a continuous form of filaments, while droplet based bioprinting relies on the generation of bioink droplets by thermal, acoustic or electrical stimulation. Laser based bioprinting utilizes laser power to 3D print structures such as in SLA by a photopolymerization principle. It can also be used for precise positioning of cells such as in laser direct-write and Laser Induced Forward Transfer (LIFT). The selection of “bioinks” for each of these different bioprinting modalities usually varies based on the ink’s rheology, viscosity, crosslinking chemistry, and biocompatibility. Extrusion based bioprinting primarily requires shear thinning bioinks while droplet or inkjet bioprinting needs materials with low viscosity. Over the past few years, the design and synthesis of bioinks has evolved to meet the increasing needs of new bioprintable materials. Significant advancements have also been made to integrate secondary techniques accompanying the above-mentioned modalities of bioprinting. For example, creating 3D structures with low viscosity bioinks has always been a challenge. To overcome this issue, such bioinks can now be extruded in a granular support bath containing yield stress hydrogels which solidify around the extruded structure and prevent it from collapsing 5 . Apart from organ printing, bioprinting is also being used to fabricate in-vitro tissue models for drug screening, disease modelling, and several other in-vitro applications.

The 3D bioprinting of cells, tissues and organs Collection at Scientific Reports is dedicated to this field of research. This collection clearly portrays the diverse applications of different bioprinting modalities and how they could be utilized for improving various aspects of healthcare. Kim et al. 3D printed a novel two-layered polycaprolactone (PCL) -based tubular tracheal graft 6 . This tracheal graft, seeded with induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) -derived mesenchymal (MSCs) and chondrocyte stem cells supported the regeneration of tracheal mucosa and cartilage in a rabbit model of a segmental tracheal defect. Galarraga et al. used a norbornene-modified hyaluronic acid (NorHA) macromer as a representative bioink for cartilage tissue engineering 7 . Printed structures containing MSCs, on long term culture, not only led to an increase in compressive moduli, but also expressed biochemical content similar to native cartilage tissue. Vidal et al. used 3D printed customized calcium phosphate scaffolds with and without a vascular pedicle to treat large bone defects in sheep 8 . They used CT angioscan to scan the entire defect site and subsequently 3D print a personalized scaffold to anatomically fit the defect site. A bioink comprising decellularized matrix from mucosal and muscular layers of native esophageal tissues was used by Nam et al. to mimic the microenvironment of native esophagus 9 . Leucht et al. used gelatin based bioinks to study vasculogenesis in a bone-like microenvironment 10 . Kilian et al. used a calcium phosphate cement (CPC) and an alginate-methylcellulose based bioink containing primary chondrocytes to mimic the different layers of osteochondral tissue 11 .

This special issue also contains three notable research articles on the patterning of cells—two utilizing acoustics, and one, magnetism. Even though bioprinting enables the homogenous distribution of cells representing the macro-architectural properties, it lacks control of the tissue micro-architecture such as orientation of cells within the bioprinted constructs. Chansoria and Shirwaiker delved deep into the physics of ultrasound-assisted bioprinting (UAB) that utilizes the acoustophoresis principle to align MG63 cells within single and multi-layered extrusion-bioprinted alginate constructs 12 . Cells were aligned both orthogonally and in parallel to the printed filaments, thus mimicking cellular anisotropy in tissues such as ligaments, tendons, and cardiac muscle. Similarly, Sriphutkiat et al. used acoustic excitation to align skeletal myoblast cells (C2C12) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) encapsulated in methacrylated gelatin (GelMA) bioink 13 . Goranov et al. magnetically labelled MSCs and HUVECs, and aligned them in a magnetic scaffold to mimic vascularization of bone constructs 14 .

It is important to note that the applications of 3D bioprinting are not limited to organ printing. It also holds great promise in less explored avenues, such as using scaffolds for drug delivery, studying disease mechanisms, or creating personalized medicines. In this Collection, Lee et al. 3D printed a rifampicin loaded PCL scaffold for possible treatment of osteomyelitis 15 . Xu and coworkers 3D printed paracetamol containing PVA tablets with three different geometries, each demonstrating different release profiles which could be tailored based on the patient's needs 16 . Further, Foresti et al. applied 5D additive manufacturing techniques to create personalized models of patients’ pathology 17 . Ding, Illsley and Chang 3D bioprinted GelMA-based models to investigate the trophoblast cell invasion phenomenon, enabling studies of key placental functions 18 .

Additionally, there are other notable articles in this Collection enumerating different aspects of bioprinting. Afghah et al. used a Pluronic-nanoclay based composite support bath to bioprint representative structures, for complex and hollow tissues, using cell laden alginate hydrogel 19 . Zhao et al. developed a 3D printed hanging drop dripper system for analyzing tumor spheroids in-situ 20 . Yumoto et al. performed RNA-seq analysis on inkjet-printed cells to analyze the effect of bioprinting on gene expression 21 . We would like to extend our utmost gratitude and thank all the authors and reviewers who devoted their time and effort towards this 3D bioprinting collection.

Even though 3D bioprinting is advancing at a commendable rate with researchers trying to develop new printing modalities as well as improve existing modalities, there still remains a multitude of challenges that need to be overcome. Currently, a limited number of bioinks exist which are both bioprintable and which accurately represent the tissue architecture needed to restore organ function post-printing. While bioinks made from naturally derived hydrogels are conducive to cell growth, synthetic hydrogels are mechanically robust. Thus, hybrid bioinks should be designed to amalgamate all these aspects. Moreover, the bioprinting process itself needs to be more cell-friendly. Shear stress applied to the cells during the printing process are detrimental to cell growth and might even alter the gene expression profiles. Stem cells, such as iPSCs, are sensitive to such physical forces and usually do not survive the printing process. As stem cell studies have mostly been performed on 2D environments, there exists a lot of unknowns for a 3D stem cell culture. Effective techniques need to be developed for high throughput generation and bioprinting of organoids 22 for personalized drug testing and predictive disease models. Additionally, vascularization of bioprinted constructs for proper nutrient exchange, as well as integration of printed vasculature with host vasculature post organ implantation, is another major obstacle. Overall, 3D bioprinting is a rapidly evolving field of research with immense challenges, but tremendous potential to revolutionize modern medicine and healthcare.

Hospodiuk, M., Dey, M., Sosnoski, D. & Ozbolat, I. T. The bioink: a comprehensive review on bioprintable materials. Biotechnol. Adv. 35 , 217–239 (2017).

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ozbolat, I. T. 3D Bioprinting: Fundamentals, Principles and Applications (Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, 2016).

Google Scholar  

Ozbolat, I. T. & Hospodiuk, M. Current advances and future perspectives in extrusion-based bioprinting. Biomaterials 76 , 321–343 (2016).

Gudapati, H., Dey, M. & Ozbolat, I. A comprehensive review on droplet-based bioprinting: past, present and future. Biomaterials 102 , 20–42 (2016).

Heo, D. N. et al. 3D bioprinting of carbohydrazide-modified gelatin into microparticle-suspended oxidized alginate for the fabrication of complex-shaped tissue constructs. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12 , 20295–20306 (2020).

Kim, I. G. et al. Transplantation of a 3D-printed tracheal graft combined with iPS cell-derived MSCs and chondrocytes. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–14 (2020).

Galarraga, J. H., Kwon, M. Y. & Burdick, J. A. 3D bioprinting via an in situ crosslinking technique towards engineering cartilage tissue. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–12 (2019).

Vidal, L. et al. Regeneration of segmental defects in metatarsus of sheep with vascularized and customized 3D-printed calcium phosphate scaffolds. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–11 (2020).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Nam, H. et al. Multi-layered free-form 3D cell-printed tubular construct with decellularized inner and outer esophageal tissue-derived bioinks. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–14 (2020).

Leucht, A., Volz, A. C., Rogal, J., Borchers, K. & Kluger, P. J. Advanced gelatin-based vascularization bioinks for extrusion-based bioprinting of vascularized bone equivalents. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–15 (2020).

Kilian, D. et al. 3D Bioprinting of osteochondral tissue substitutes-in vitro-chondrogenesis in multi-layered mineralized constructs. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65050-9 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chansoria, P. & Shirwaiker, R. Characterizing the process physics of ultrasound-assisted bioprinting. Sci. Rep https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50449-w (2019).

Sriphutkiat, Y., Kasetsirikul, S., Ketpun, D. & Zhou, Y. Cell alignment and accumulation using acoustic nozzle for bioprinting. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–12 (2019).

ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Goranov, V. et al. 3D patterning of cells+in magnetic scaffolds for tissue engineering. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58738-5 (2020).

Lee, J. H. et al. Development of a heat labile antibiotic eluting 3D printed scaffold for the treatment of osteomyelitis. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–8 (2020).

Xu, X., Zhao, J., Wang, M., Wang, L. & Yang, J. 3D printed polyvinyl alcohol tablets with multiple release profiles. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48921-8 (2019).

Foresti, R. et al. In-vivo vascular application via ultra-fast bioprinting for future 5D personalised nanomedicine. Sci. Rep. 10 , 3205 (2020).

ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ding, H., Illsley, N. P. & Chang, R. C. 3D bioprinted GelMA based models for the study of trophoblast cell invasion. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–13 (2019).

Afghah, F., Altunbek, M., Dikyol, C. & Koc, B. Preparation and characterization of nanoclay-hydrogel composite support-bath for bioprinting of complex structures. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–13 (2020).

Zhao, L. et al. A 3D printed hanging drop dripper for tumor spheroids analysis without recovery. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–14 (2019).

Yumoto, M. et al. Evaluation of the effects of cell-dispensing using an inkjet-based bioprinter on cell integrity by RNA-seq analysis. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–10 (2020).

Ayan, B. et al. Aspiration-assisted bioprinting for precise positioning of biologics. Sci. Adv. 6 , eaaw5111 (2020).

ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Chemistry, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

Madhuri Dey

The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

Madhuri Dey & Ibrahim T. Ozbolat

Engineering Science and Mechanics Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

Ibrahim T. Ozbolat

Biomedical Engineering Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

Materials Research Institute, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.D. wrote the manuscript. I.T.O. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim T. Ozbolat .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dey, M., Ozbolat, I.T. 3D bioprinting of cells, tissues and organs. Sci Rep 10 , 14023 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70086-y

Download citation

Published : 18 August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70086-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

3d printing technology in the pharmaceutical and biomedical applications: a critical review.

• Nahid Tyagi
• Vipul Bhardwaj
• Gaurav Sharma

Biomedical Materials & Devices (2024)

Infantile hemangioma models: is the needle in a haystack?

Journal of Translational Medicine (2023)

Fully 3D-printed organic electrochemical transistors

• Matteo Massetti
• Silan Zhang
• Simone Fabiano

npj Flexible Electronics (2023)

3D and 4D Bioprinting Technologies: A Game Changer for the Biomedical Sector?

• Reza Noroozi
• Zia Ullah Arif
• Xiongbiao Chen

Annals of Biomedical Engineering (2023)

Additive manufacturing for biomedical applications: a review on classification, energy consumption, and its appreciable role since COVID-19 pandemic

• Mudassar Rehman
• Jakia Sultana

Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

A Survey of 3D Printing Technologies as Applied to Printed Electronics

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

Jonathan Weiss and Jessica Herrmann, members of the Skylar-Scott lab, run a test print using a 3D bioprinter, which allows them to print structures containing living cells. (Image credit: Andrew Brodhead)

3D printing research at Stanford

3D printing offers a world of possibilities, but it has its limitations. Stanford researchers are stretching the boundaries of current printing models and finding innovative ways to solve pressing dilemmas of design, engineering, and medicine.

The 3D printer has come a long way since the debut of consumer-friendly printers in the early 2000s. The versatile technology allows designers and engineers to forgo traditional manufacturing, opening up a world of seemingly endless possibilities. But the instrument has its limits. The process can be slow, and most objects can only be built layer by layer – with just one material at a time.

Stanford University researchers are challenging the limitations of current 3D printing technology . One innovative printing method is increasing printing speeds by 10x that of the quickest available model and allowing researchers to introduce multiple materials at once. Another group of engineers is using light to carve intricate designs into stationary mounds of resin, hoping to eliminate the need to build from the bottom up.

From creating surprisingly strong nanoscale lattices built to protect fragile satellites to fashioning heart tissue from living cells to combat congenital heart disease, these researchers are exploring the what ifs of this technology. What if our products were more resilient? What if we used biomaterials? And what if we take a moment to consider the inevitable questions that will arise as we move forward with this emerging technology?

A new 3D printing method promises faster, multi-material creations

Engineers have designed a method of 3D printing that is five to 10 times faster than the quickest high-resolution printer currently available.

New nanoscale 3D printing material offers better structural protection

Engineers have designed a new material for nanoscale 3D printing that is able to absorb twice as much energy and could be used to create better lightweight protective lattices.

Is there a better way to do 3D printing?

Engineers at Stanford and Harvard have laid the groundwork for a new 3D printing system that doesn’t require an object to be printed from the bottom up.

Building a heart, one layer at a time

Using advanced 3D printing techniques, Mark Skylar-Scott and his team want to transform a paste made of living cells into hearts and other organs.

Engineering a new heart, layer by layer

In the hopes of helping children with congenital heart defects, Mark Skylar-Scott is engineering heart tissue in the lab using advanced 3D printing techniques.

'Metalheads' course teaches scope of materials science and engineering

From ancient coins to 3D printed spaceships, students in the course Metalheads of Science learn about the broad applications of materials science through the lens of metals.

A new approach to vaccinations: 3D printed patches

Researchers published a paper detailing a vaccine patch prototype, demonstrating that the concept was not only feasible but also potentially more effective than injected vaccinations at generating a robust immune response.

Engineering health through 3D printing

Stanford Engineering professors discuss 3D printing and major advances in health care that have resulted from the burgeoning technology – from vaccine patches and nanoscale robots to life-saving heart tissues.

Joseph DeSimone: How 3D printing is changing medicine

With growing precision and new materials, 3D printing stands to reshape health care.

Touch-based display helps blind people create in three dimensions

Stanford researchers designed a tactile display that aims to make 3D printing and computer-aided design accessible to people who are blind and visually impaired.

A novel approach to cardiac surgery

Stanford medical student Kevin Cyr is part of a team of researchers using 3D printing to build custom cardiac surgical devices.

3D Printing Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends & Forecasts (2024 - 2029)

The Report Offers 3D Printing Industry Trends and is Segmented by Printer Type (desktop and Industry-Grade), Technology (stereo Lithography, Fused Deposition Modeling, Electron Beam Melting, Digital Light Processing, And Selective Laser Sintering), Material Type (metal, Plastic, And Ceramics), End-user Industry (automotive, Aerospace, And Defense, Healthcare, Construction and Architecture, Energy, And Food), And by Geography. The Market Size and Forecasts are Provided in Terms of Value (USD) for all the Above Segments.

• 3D Printing Market Size

Need a report that reflects how COVID-19 has impacted this market and its growth?

3D Printing Market Analysis

The 3D Printing Market is expected to register a CAGR of 22.66% during the forecast period.

This growth of the 3D printing market is pinned to the trend that large manufacturers are increasingly using the technology for mass production.

• With rapid advancements in material composition, such as the emerging use cases of polymers and metals, additive manufacturing is evolving from a prototyping tool to a functional part of fabrication. New materials, shorter lead times, and innovative finishes while adhering to standards (FDA, ASTM, and ISO) enable the technology to be integrated into manufacturing processes.
• Further, the decreased prices of additive manufacturing-based machines, growing expertise, and awareness have increased 3D manufacturing adoption. Newer and advanced fused deposition modeling methods have enabled the use of diverse materials, thereby boosting widespread adoption across various industries over recent years.
• Governments worldwide have already started investing in R&D on 3D printing, which has positively impacted technology propagation and adoption. For instance, in February 2022, the government of India aims to capture 5% of the global market share in 3D printing by adding nearly USD 2-3 billion to the GDP in the coming 2-3 years. The government plans to create 50 India-specific technologies for material, machine, process, and software to make India a 3D-printed design and manufacturing hub.
• However, as technology advances, additive manufacturing challenges the traditional forms of Intellectual Property (IP) protection. It significantly boosts the illegal usage of printed weapons and drugs, which is expected to hinder the market's growth. Also, the market is constrained by the high equipment costs needed to achieve substantial economies of scale. Furthermore, the lack of an international standards body regulating manufacturers limits the market's standardization structure.
• COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for 3D printing. 3D printing systems are rapidly being utilized to create medical devices, personal protective equipment (PPE), testing devices, and even emergency dwellings to isolate persons suffering from the disease. The various technological advancements, such as AI and ML, further augment the adoption of 3D Printing devices.
• The pandemic hit the metal and polymer 3D printing markets hard. Whereas growth has been slower for metals and polymers than pre-pandemic expectations, these markets are returning rapidly with growing demand from end-user industries.
• 3D Printing Market Trends

Rapid Advancement in Printing Technologies and Materials to Drive Market

• Rapid developments in production technologies and materials are helping to drive demand for the 3D printing market. The rapid growth of 3D printing techniques and materials is taking place worldwide, opening up new possibilities in 3D printing and creating complex and custom design products.
• For example, new printing technologies like selective laser sintering (SLS) and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) make it possible to create complex metal parts with high precision. This is opening up new opportunities for 3D printing in the automotive, aerospace, and defense industries. With space exploration witnessing a paradigm shift, the demand for SLS printing is expected to mount, with an increasing number of countries gearing up to launch satellites.
• New materials like carbon fiber and graphene are also being developed for 3D printing. These materials are solid and lightweight, making them ideal for various applications. For example, carbon fiber is used to create 3D-printed racing car parts, and graphene is used to create 3D-printed medical implants. For instance, in November 2022, Inkbit, a Massachusetts-based additive manufacturing company, introduced its latest additive manufacturing material, the Titan Tough Epoxy 85 elastomer, at Formnext. This material improves performance for applications requiring high accuracy and production-grade mechanical properties.
• The rapid advancement in printing technologies and materials is one of the key trends contributing to the growth of the 3D printing market. As these technologies continue to develop, manufacturers can use 3D printing in various end-use applications.

North America Holds the Largest Share in the Market

• The North American region is expected to dominate the 3D printing market as the region is an early adopter of technology. A series of new product launches and innovations are expected to augment market growth. Several 3D printing solution providers worldwide are expanding their presence in the North American market for an enhanced market presence.
• Several players in the United States market are expanding their focus on 3D printing research and development. In May 2023, Siemens announced its increasing emphasis on 3D printing initiatives in the United States to accelerate the transformation of the US additive manufacturing industry through serial additive manufacturing. With these initiatives, the company is working on bringing fundamental changes to the landscape, end-to-end, from product to machine to manufacturing.
• The region is also witnessing a series of investments in North America's healthcare, aerospace and defense, industrial, and consumer products industries, which are expected to grow significantly. In November 2022, Med-tech start-up Axial3D received an investment round of USD 15 million led by a strategic investment of 10 million USD from Stratasys. The collaboration between the two companies would provide a combined offering to make 3D printing solutions that are patient-specific for hospitals and medical device manufacturers more accessible, pushing for its adoption as a mainstream healthcare solution.
• In addition, various government organizations, such as NASA, have identified that substantial investments in 3D printing technologies can contribute considerably to space applications and develop zero-G technologies, driving the market's growth.
• Fitness trackers and smart apparel are also expected to drive factors for 3D printing technology in the United States. Also, changing consumer preferences and a rising need for customization have brought about a need to create flexible bands and electronics systems that could be realized using 3D printing technology, thereby driving its growth.

3D Printing Industry Overview

The 3D printing market is fragmented with global and regional players. The key players in the market, like Stratasys Ltd, 3D Systems Corporation, EOS GmbH, General Electric Company (GE Additive), and Sisma SPA, among others, are making partnerships, mergers, acquisitions, and investments in the market to retain their market position.

In April 2023, Stratasys Ltd., one of the leaders in polymer 3D printing solutions, acquired Covestro AG's additive manufacturing materials business. The acquisition includes R&D facilities and activities, global development, and sales teams in Europe, the United States, and Asia.

In October 2022, AML3D Australian metal 3D printing expanded its partnership with Boing aircraft manufacturer. Boeing tasked AML3D earlier this year with 3D printing aluminum prototype airplane components as part of an intensive testing procedure. They were tested against the requirements of AS9100D quality assurance for 'fly' parts. Building on this contract, it has now been decided to broaden the scope of the project to include additional 3D-printed components, increasing the agreement's value by 150%.

In June 2022, Israel-based Stratasys planned the expansion of its 3D printing sector in India. Ashok Leyland, Hero MotoCorp, AIIMS, Symbiosis, and IITs are among the company's clientele, with extensive experience in design prototyping, manufacturing tools, and production parts.

3D Printing Market Leaders

Stratasys Ltd.

3D Systems Corporation

Proto Labs Inc.

SLM Solutions Group AG

*Disclaimer: Major Players sorted in no particular order

3D Printing Market News

• October 2022: PostProcess Technologies and EOS have launched a distribution relationship to provide EOS clients with a fully automated and sustainable depowering solution. According to PostProcess, the Variable Acoustic Displacement (VAD) technology solution will complement the EOS printer product line and automate gross depowering for 3D printed parts. The partnership makes it easier for consumers to obtain post-printing solutions, allowing for complete process digitization.
• August 2022: India's central government's Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPWD) is preparing to introduce 3D printing technology to gradually replace manual customization of devices, which is currently the norm, to improve quality of life and bring more precision to assistive devices such as artificial limbs and spinal braces to enhance mobility of persons with locomotor disabilities. Delhi-based Pt Deendayal Upadhyaya National Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities (PDUNIPPD) has successfully tested the technology.
• February 2022: The government of India announced a national strategy for 3D printing to encourage collaboration between academia, government, and industry to make India a global hub for designing, developing, and deploying 3D printing.

3D Printing Market Report - Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Assumptions and Market Definition

1.2 Scope of the Study

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4. MARKET INSIGTHS

4.1 Market Overview

4.2 Industry Attractiveness - Porter's Five Forces Analysis

4.2.1 Bargaining Power of Suppliers

4.2.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers

4.2.3 Threat of New Entrants

4.2.4 Threat of Substitutes

4.2.5 Intensity of Competitive Rivalry

4.3 Industry Value Chain Analysis

4.4 Impact of COVID-19 on the Market

5. MARKET DYNAMICS

5.1 Market Drivers

5.1.1 Initiatives and Spending by the Government

5.1.2 Ease in Development of Customized Products

5.2 Market Challenges

5.2.1 High Initial Cost and Skill Shortage

6. MARKET SEGMENTATION

6.1 By Technology

6.1.1 Stereo Lithography (SLA)

6.1.2 Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)

6.1.3 Electron Beam Melting

6.1.4 Digital Light Processing

6.1.5 Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)

6.1.6 Other Technologies

6.2 By Material Type

6.2.1 Metal

6.2.2 Plastic

6.2.3 Ceramics

6.2.4 Other Material Types

6.3 By End-user Industry

6.3.1 Automotive

6.3.2 Aerospace and Defense

6.3.3 Healthcare

6.3.4 Construction and Architecture

6.3.5 Energy

6.3.7 Other End-user Industries

6.4 By Geography

6.4.1 North America

6.4.2 Europe

6.4.3 Asia-Pacific

6.4.4 Rest of the World

7. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

7.1 Company Profiles

7.1.1 Stratasys Ltd

7.1.2 3D Systems Corporation

7.1.3 EOS GmbH

7.1.4 General Electric Company (GE Additive)

7.1.5 Sisma SPA

7.1.6 ExOne Co.

7.1.7 SLM Solutions Group AG

7.1.8 Proto Labs Inc.

7.1.9 Hewlett Packard Inc.

7.1.10 Nano Dimernsion Ltd

7.1.11 Ultimaker BV

• *List Not Exhaustive

8. INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

9. MARKET OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE TRENDS

3D Printing Industry Segmentation

Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, is an automated process of creating rapid prototypes and functional end-use parts. It transforms virtual designs from computer-aided design (CAD) software into thin, virtual, horizontal layer-wise cross-sections until the model is complete. The 3D printing market's scope categorizes the various technologies used in 3D Printing, ranging from SLA, FDM, SLS, DLM, EBM, etc.

The study also categorizes an in-depth analysis of multiple applications of 3D Printing across various end-user industries, such as automotive, aerospace, defense, healthcare, construction, and architecture. The categorization is also based on material types, such as metals, plastics, and ceramics.

The 3D Printing Market is segmented by printer type (desktop and industry-grade), technology (stereo lithography, fused deposition modeling, electron beam melting, digital light processing, and selective laser sintering), material type (metal, plastic, and ceramics), end-user industry (automotive, aerospace, and defense, healthcare, construction and architecture, energy, and food), and by geography.

The market sizes and forecasts are provided in terms of value (in USD) for all the above segments.

3D Printing Market Research FAQs

What is the current 3d printing market size.

The 3D Printing Market is projected to register a CAGR of 22.66% during the forecast period (2024-2029)

Who are the key players in 3D Printing Market?

Stratasys Ltd., 3D Systems Corporation, Proto Labs Inc., SLM Solutions Group AG and EOS GmbH are the major companies operating in the 3D Printing Market.

Which is the fastest growing region in 3D Printing Market?

Asia Pacific is estimated to grow at the highest CAGR over the forecast period (2024-2029).

Which region has the biggest share in 3D Printing Market?

In 2024, the North America accounts for the largest market share in 3D Printing Market.

What years does this 3D Printing Market cover?

The report covers the 3D Printing Market historical market size for years: 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. The report also forecasts the 3D Printing Market size for years: 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029.

What are the Leading 3D Printing technologies?

New printing technologies like selective laser sintering (SLS), stereolithography (SLA), and fused deposition modeling (FDM), with other metal printings gaining traction in the 3D Printing Market.

Our Best Selling Reports

• Global Disposable Face Mask Market
• Aesthetic Lasers Market
• Nucleic Acid Isolation and Purification Market
• Cryogenic Pump Market
• Silicone Sealants Market
• Colombia Power Market
• External Defibrillator Market
• Renewable Energy in Poland Market
• Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer Market
• Polyamides Market

3D Printing Industry Report

The global 3D printing market is on a robust growth trajectory, fueled by technological advancements and a broadening range of applications across industries. With a remarkable CAGR, it's set to reach a substantial valuation by the end of the forecast period, driven by active R&D and a growing preference for prototypes in diverse sectors. The expansion is further supported by the adoption of mixed-material printers and 3D technologies in academic and research centers, alongside a trend towards customization with DIY 3D printers. North America leads the market, with the Asia Pacific region projected to see the highest growth, driven by rapid industrial advancements. Despite challenges like high prototype costs, the market's future is promising, with significant opportunities for innovation. Statistics for the Global 3D Printing Market share, size and revenue growth rate, created by Mordor Intelligence™ Industry Reports. Global 3D Printing analysis includes a market forecast outlook and historical overview. Get a sample of this industry analysis as a free report PDF download.

3D Printing Market Report Snapshots

• 3D Printing Market Share
• 3D Printing Companies
• 3D Printing News

Please enter a valid email id!

Please enter a valid message!

3D Printing Market Get a free sample of this report

Please enter your name

Business Email

Please enter a valid email

Please enter your phone number

Get this Data in a Free Sample of the 3D Printing Market Report

Please enter your requirement

Thank you for choosing us for your research needs! A confirmation has been sent to your email. Rest assured, your report will be delivered to your inbox within the next 72 hours. A member of our dedicated Client Success Team will proactively reach out to guide and assist you. We appreciate your trust and are committed to delivering precise and valuable research insights.

Please be sure to check your spam folder too.

Sorry! Payment Failed. Please check with your bank for further details.

Add Citation APA MLA Chicago

➜ Embed Code X

Get Embed Code

Want to use this image? X

Please copy & paste this embed code onto your site:

Images must be attributed to Mordor Intelligence. Learn more

About The Embed Code X

Mordor Intelligence's images may only be used with attribution back to Mordor Intelligence. Using the Mordor Intelligence's embed code renders the image with an attribution line that satisfies this requirement.

In addition, by using the embed code, you reduce the load on your web server, because the image will be hosted on the same worldwide content delivery network Mordor Intelligence uses instead of your web server.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Healthc Eng
• v.2019; 2019

The Role of 3D Printing in Medical Applications: A State of the Art

1 Aid4Med S.r.l., Udine 33100, Italy

Augusto Palermo

2 Head 3 Orthopaedic Department, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS Capitanio Hospital, Milan 20122, Italy

Bernardo Innocenti

3 BEAMS Department, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles 1050, Belgium

Three-dimensional (3D) printing refers to a number of manufacturing technologies that generate a physical model from digital information. Medical 3D printing was once an ambitious pipe dream. However, time and investment made it real. Nowadays, the 3D printing technology represents a big opportunity to help pharmaceutical and medical companies to create more specific drugs, enabling a rapid production of medical implants, and changing the way that doctors and surgeons plan procedures. Patient-specific 3D-printed anatomical models are becoming increasingly useful tools in today's practice of precision medicine and for personalized treatments. In the future, 3D-printed implantable organs will probably be available, reducing the waiting lists and increasing the number of lives saved. Additive manufacturing for healthcare is still very much a work in progress, but it is already applied in many different ways in medical field that, already reeling under immense pressure with regards to optimal performance and reduced costs, will stand to gain unprecedented benefits from this good-as-gold technology. The goal of this analysis is to demonstrate by a deep research of the 3D-printing applications in medical field the usefulness and drawbacks and how powerful technology it is.

1. Introduction

Among the different manufacturing processes that are currently adopted by the industry, the 3D printing is an additive technique. It is a process through which a three-dimensional solid object, virtually of any shape, is generated starting from a digital model. Medical 3D printing was once an ambitious pipe dream. However, time and investment made it real. Nowadays, the 3D printing technology represents a big opportunity to help pharmaceutical and medical companies to create more specific drugs, enabling a rapid production of medical implants and changing the way that doctors and surgeons plan procedures [ 1 ]. This technology has multiple applications, and the fastest growing innovation in the medical field has been represented by the advent of the 3D printing itself [ 2 ]. Five technical steps are required to finalize a printed model. They include selecting the anatomical target area, the development of the 3D geometry through the processing of the medical images coming from a CT/MRI scan, the optimization of the file for the physical printing, and the appropriate selection of the 3D printer and materials ( Figure 1 ). This file represents the guidance for the subsequent printing, “slicing” that digital design model into cross sections. That “sliced” design is then sent to a 3D printer, which manufactures the object by starting at the base layer and building a series of layers on top until the object is built using the raw materials that are needed for its composition. A patient-specific model with anatomical fidelity created from imaging dataset is finally obtained.

3D-printing workflow.

In this way, the 3D printing has the potential to significantly improve the research knowledge and the skills of the new generation of surgeons, the relationship between patient and surgeon [ 3 ], increasing the level of understanding of the disease involved, and the patient-specific design of implantable devices and surgical tools [ 4 – 6 ] and optimize the surgical process and cost [ 7 ]. Nowadays, different printing techniques and material are available in order to better reproduce the patient anatomy. Most of the available printing materials are rigid and therefore not optimum for flexibility and elasticity, unlike biological tissue [ 8 ]. Therefore, there are nowadays materials able to close the gap between the real anatomy and the reproduced one, especially considering the soft tissue [ 9 , 10 ]. In this analysis, an overview of the 3D printing application in medical field is presented, highlighting the usefulness and limitations and how it could be useful for surgeons.

2. Additive Manufacturing Technologies

The 3D-printing techniques have grown in the last decades starting from 1986 when the first stereolithographic (SLA) systems were introduced in practice. Seven are the technical processes related to the 3D printing, each of which is represented by one or more commercial technologies, as shown by the ASTM International [ 11 ]. All the processes are listed in Table 1 that reported information about the technologies involved, the materials used, and the medical applications related to each process [ 12 ]. A comparison among all the seven techniques is proposed in the same table showing the advantages and disadvantages related to all the processes. Each process uses specific materials with specific properties that relate to medical applications, which are also summarized in Table 1 . This general information helps the users to better choose the right technology depending on the application needed.

Summary of the 3D-printing process and technologies, focus on materials needed and medical applications, and comparison among the 3D-printing technologies.

These technologies and the related advantages enable the researchers to improve existing medical applications that use 3D-printing technology and to explore new ones. The medical goal that has been already reached is significant and exciting, but some of the more revolutionary applications, such as bio/organ printing, require more time to evolve [ 2 ].

3. Transformation Process and Materials Used

Materials used in 3D printing are transformed during the production of the specific model by changing their consistency. This process is named cure and can be done in different ways: a melting of a hard filament in order to give the desired form to the model by the material distortion, liquid solidification for the construction of the structure and powder solidification. All these processes require filler or support material in lattice forms avoiding distortion of the model while the material is being cured. The support material can be easily removed by hand with a cutting tool; however, there is the risk to leave impression on the surface requiring an additional polishing in order to obtain a good-quality printing. The risk of damaging the model, losing details, or break the geometry is really high [ 23 ].

The correct selection of the material is directly linked to the selection of the 3D-printing process and printer, as well as the requirements of the model. Related to medical application, similarly to other applications, different anatomical structures need different mechanical properties of the materials to fulfill the required performance of the printed object [ 8 ]. The main distinction among the different materials that characterize the human body is between rigid and soft materials. Human bones are an example of rigid tissue and ligaments or articular cartilage are examples of soft materials. Bones are the simplest and easiest biological tissue to be produced by 3D printing as the majority of the materials are rigid. The materials used in 3D printing to model the bone structure are for example acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) [ 23 ], powder of plasters [ 24 ], and hydroquinone [ 8 ].

Relating to soft tissues, deeper research is still needed in order to decrease the gap between a 3D-printed anatomical model and the human structure. Most of the 3D-printing materials present a lack of realism to mimic adequately a soft human biological tissue. Thus, postprocessing may be necessary in order to soften the printed structures. Some examples are given in the reproduction of cartilaginous tissues [ 25 ], arteries for practicing valve replacement [ 26 ], hepatic segment [ 27 ], and hearts [ 28 ]. An interesting example is the development of a 3D-printed brain aneurysm using the flexible TangoPlus™ photopolymer [ 29 ] that represented a useful tool to plan the operative strategy in order to treat congenital heart disease. Furthermore, some of the materials used are urethane and rubber-like material, mixed with a rigid photopolymer, to reasonably mimic the artery structure due to their Shore value and elastic properties similar to the physiological one [ 30 , 31 ].

For a promising future, the multimaterial composites seem to represent a good chance for the 3D printing of human tissues since none of the current available material is able to fully mimic elastic and biological tissues. Multimaterial composites may be designed based on the capacity of the selected biological material to replicate the mechanical properties of human tissue [ 32 ]. Mechanical testing may represent a necessary tool to analyze the biomechanical response and validate the artificial material.

Moreover, it is also important to mention that 3D printing allows the reproduction of implantable custom device, but still deeper research needs to be done in order to examine the differences between the traditional and additive manufacturing in terms of mechanical and structural properties, especially fatigue limit needs to be examined further [ 33 ].

4. Role of 3D Printing in Medical Field

Every year, 3D printing offers more and more applications in the healthcare field helping to save and improve lives in ways never imagined up to now. In fact, the 3D printing has been used in a wide range of healthcare settings including, but not limited to cardiothoracic surgery [ 34 ], cardiology [ 26 ], gastroenterology [ 35 ], neurosurgery [ 36 ], oral and maxillofacial surgery [ 37 ], ophthalmology [ 38 ], otolaryngology [ 39 ], orthopaedic surgery [ 22 ], plastic surgery [ 40 ], podiatry [ 41 ], pulmonology [ 42 ], radiation oncology [ 43 ], transplant surgery [ 44 ], urology [ 45 ], and vascular surgery [ 46 ].

Thanks to the different benefits that this technology could induce in the field, the main direct applications of 3D printing in the medical and clinical field are as follows [ 47 ]:

• Used for personalized presurgical/treatment and for preoperative planning. This will lead to a multistep procedure that, integrating clinical and imaging information, will determine the best therapeutic option. Several studies have demonstrated that patient-specific presurgical planning may potentially reduce time spent in the operating room (OR) and result in fewer complications [ 48 , 49 ]. Moreover, this may lead to reduced postoperative stays, decreased reintervention rates, and lower healthcare costs. The 3D-printing technology allows to provide to the surgeon a physical 3D model of the desired patient anatomy that could be used to accurately plan the surgical approach along with cross-sectional imaging or, alternatively, modelling custom prosthetics (or surgical tool) based on patient-specific anatomy [ 50 – 54 ]. In this way, a better understanding of a complex anatomy unique to each case is allowed [ 52 – 56 ]. Furthermore, the 3D printing gives the possibility to choose before the implantation the size of the prostheses components with very high accuracy [ 57 – 59 ].
• Customize surgical tools and prostheses: the 3D printing can be used to manufacture custom implants or surgical guides and instruments. Therefore, the customization of surgical tools and prostheses means a reduction of cost given by the additive manufacturing technique [ 52 – 54 , 60 ].
• Study of osteoporotic conditions: following a pharmacological treatment, 3D printing is useful in validating the results achieved by the patient. This enables a more accurate estimation of patientʼs bone condition and a better decision on the surgical treatment [ 15 ].
• Testing different device in specific pathways: a clear example is the reproduction of different vascular patterns to test the effectiveness of a cardiovascular system used to treat peripheral and coronary artery disease [ 61 ]. In this way, the 3D printing enables us to quickly produce prototypes of new design concepts or improvements to existing devices.
• Improving medical education: 3D-printed patient-specific models have demonstrated that they can increase performance and foster rapid learning [ 62 ], while significantly ameliorating the knowledge, management, and confidence of the trainees regardless of the area of expertise [ 8 ]. The benefits of 3D printing in education are the reproducibility and safety of the 3D-printed model with respect to the cadaver dissection, the possibility to model different physiologic and pathologic anatomy from a huge dataset of images, and the possibility to share 3D models among different institutions, especially with ones that have fewer resources [ 63 ]. 3D printers that have the capability to print with different densities and colours can be used to accentuate the anatomical details [ 64 , 65 ].
• Patient education: patient-centered cares makes patient education one of the top priorities for most healthcare providers. However, communicating imaging reports verbally or by showing patients their CT or MRI scans may not be effective; the patients may not fully understand 2D images representation of a 3D anatomy. On the contrary, 3D printing may improve the doctor-patient communication by showing the anatomic model directly [ 66 , 67 ].
• Storage of rare cases for educational purposes: this role is closely linked to the previous one. This allows the generation of a large dataset composed by datasets of patients affected by rare pathologies, allowing the training of surgeons in specific applications [ 52 – 54 ].
• Improve the forensic practice: in the courtroom, a 3D model could be used to easily demonstrate various anatomic abnormalities that may be difficult to jury members to understand using cross-sectional imaging [ 68 ].
• Bioprinting: the 3D printing allows also the modelling of implantable tissue. Some examples are the 3D printing of synthetic skin for transplanting to patients, who suffered burn injuries [ 69 ]. It may also be used for testing of cosmetic, chemical, and pharmaceutical products. Another example is the replicating of heart valves using a combination of cells and biomaterials to control the valve's stiffness [ 26 ] or the replicating of human ears using molds filled with a gel containing bovine cartilage cells suspended in collagen [ 70 ].
• Personalized drug 3D printing: the 3D printing of drugs consists of the printing out the powdered drug layer to make it dissolve faster than average pills [ 71 ]. It allows also personalization of the patient's needed quantity [ 2 ].
• Customizing synthetic organs: the 3D printing may represent an opportunity to save life reducing the waiting list of patients that need transplantation [ 72 ]. Bioprinted organs may also be used in the future by pharmaceutical industries to replace animal models for analyzing the toxicity of new drugs [ 73 ].

Therefore, these examples clearly demonstrated that 3D printing is one of the most disruptive technologies that have the potential to change significantly the clinical field, improving medicine and healthcare, making care affordable, accessible, and personalized. As printers evolve, printing biomaterials get safety regulated and the general public acquires a common sense about how 3D printing works.

4.1. Lack of Regulation

The biomedical field is one of the areas in which 3D printing has already shown its potentialities and that, in not too distant future, may be one of the key elements for the resolution of important problems related to human health that still exist.

Nowadays, despite the additive manufacturing offers a great potential for the manufacturing, the 3D-printing products do not have a proper legal status that defines them, both for implantable and nonimplantable devices. All the 3D-printed products are categorized as custom-made device under the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 5 April 2017 [ 74 ]. They are defined as follow: “ any device specifically made in accordance with a written prescription of any person authorized by national law by virtue of that person's professional qualifications which gives, under that person's responsibility, specific design characteristics, and is intended for the sole use of a particular patient exclusively to meet their individual conditions and needs ”. Differently for mass-produced devices “ which need to be adapted to meet the specific requirements of any professional user and devices which are mass-produced by means of industrial manufacturing processes in accordance with the written prescriptions of any authorized person shall not be considered to be custom-made devices ” [ 75 ]. Indeed, manufacturers of custom-made devices shall only be guaranteed by an obligation of conformity assessment procedures upon which the device shall be compliant with safety and performance requirements [ 76 ]. Furthermore, the regulation states that “ Devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, considered to be in conformity with the requirements of this Regulation shall bear the CE marking of conformity ” [ 77 ]. Thus, these medical devices do not require affixation of CE markings: a significant and constraining procedure demonstrating the safety and the performance of the device for the patient. Moreover, the custom-made devices do not require the UDI System (Unique Device Identification system) as reported in the Article 27, Comma 1 of the regulation.

A different approach has to be applied for custom-made implants, such as dental prostheses, that are defined as “ any device, including those that are partially or wholly absorbed, which is intended :

• to be totally introduced into the human body, or
• to replace an epithelial surface or the surface of the eye,

by clinical intervention and which is intended to remain in place after the procedure.

Any device intended to be partially introduced into the human body by clinical intervention and intended to remain in place after the procedure for at least 30 days shall also be deemed to be an implantable .” [ 78 ]. The custom-made implantable devices require the CE marking in order to guarantee the safety and to be commercialized.

The EU has been working for many years on an update to the Medical Devices Directive. This proposed legislation has many noble attributes in addition to overcoming the gaps of the existing Medical Devices Directive, such as supporting technology and science innovation, while simultaneously strengthening patient safety. However, the current version of the draft Regulation lacks some depth that is mandatory to safeguard safe usage of 3D-printing technology and, thus, enable its increasing prevalence in medicine.

4.2. Examples of Application of 3D Printing in Paediatric Cases

Three-dimensional (3D) modelling and printing greatly supports advances in individualized medicine and surgery. Looking to the field of paediatrics, it is possible to identify four main applications categories: surgical planning, prostheses, tissue construct, and drug printing.

There are many successful cases that demonstrate the potential of the additive manufacturing in surgical planning in paediatric cases. In particular, most of the applications of 3D printing reported in the literature are related to the congenital heart disease [ 29 ]. This is due to the fact that children have a smaller chest cavity than adults, and the surgical treatment in paediatric cases may be much more difficult. The additive manufacturing helps the surgeons to have more information than the only ones that imaging technologies can afford. It helps the surgeon in the spatial orientation inside the cavities of a small infant heart and in simulating the surgical approach and steps of the operation with high fidelity [ 79 ]. This leads to shorter intraoperative time that per se has significant impact on complication rate, blood loss, postoperative length-of-stay, and reduced costs [ 80 ]. An example of the application of the 3D printing in the paediatric congenital heart disease treatment is a study reported in the literature based on the development of a 3D heart model of a 15-years-old boy to improve interventional simulation and planning in patient with aortic arch hypoplasia. The 3D-printed model allowed simulation of the stenting intervention. The assessment of optimal stent position, size, and length was found to be useful for the actual intervention in the patient. This represents one of the most technically challenging surgical procedures which opens the door for potential simulation applications of a 3D model in the field of catheterization and cardiovascular interventions [ 81 ].

Another study proposed in which the 3D printing had a relevant role consists in a clinical preoperative evaluation on five patients ranged from 7 months to 11 years of age affected by a double outlet right ventricle with two well-developed ventricles and with a remote ventricular septal defect. The three-dimensional printed model based on the data derived from computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MRI) contributed to a more complete appreciation of the intracardic anatomy, leading to a successful surgical repair for three of the five patients. [ 82 ] Lastly, CT and MRI data were used to construct 3D digital and anatomical models to plan a heart transplantation surgical procedure of two patients of 2 and 14 years old affected relatively by hypoplastic left heart syndrome and pulmonary atresia with a hypoplastic right ventricle. These physical models allowed the surgeon and the paediatric cardiologist to develop the optimal surgical treatment during the heart transplantation anticipating problems that may arise during the procedure. The specific dimensions and distances can be measured, and heart transplantation can be planned [ 83 ].

The importance of three-dimensional printing has been demonstrating also in other application. The additive manufacturing in fact has been used to plan surgical treatment of paediatric orthopaedic disorders [ 84 ]. The 3D model of a 2-year-old male child was produced in order to plan the surgical treatment for his multisutural craniosynostosis with a history of worsening cranial deformity. Other than the turribrachycephalic skull, the child also had greatly raised intracranial pressure with papilledema and copper beaten appearance of the skull. Thorough preoperative planning enabled faster surgery and decreased anesthesia time in a compromised patient [ 85 ].

Another study, based on 13 cases of multiplane spinal or pelvic deformity, was developed in order to demonstrate that the three-dimensional printing may represent a useful tool in the surgical planning of complex paediatric spinal deformities treatment [ 86 ].

Changing the final goal of the additive manufacturing, other applications cases are reported in the literature to demonstrate the usefulness in the production of paediatric patient-specific prostheses. An example in the literature is given by the development of a low-cost three-dimensional printed prosthetic hand for children with upper-limb reductions using a fitting methodology that can be performed at a distance [ 87 ]. This specific case demonstrates that the advancements in computer-aided design (CAD) programs, additive manufacturing, and imaging editing software offer the possibility of designing, printing, and fitting prosthetic hands devices overcoming the costs limitation. As a consequence, the advantages of 3D-printed implants over conventional ones are in terms of customizability and cost as seems to be clear from the previous example. On the contrary, the major adversity is related to the rapid physical growth that makes the customize prostheses outsized frequently. This leads to the production of advanced technological implant that, due to their high complexity and weight, increases cost. The additive manufacturing can be used to fabricate rugged, light-weight, easily replaceable, and very low-cost prostheses for children [ 88 ]. The major prostheses lack is related to the ability to communicate with the brain in terms of sensibility. With the advent of bioprinting, cellular prostheses could be an interesting area of research, which can lead to integrated prostheses in the brain communication system, and exhibit more biomimicry with tissue and organ functionalities [ 89 ].

Related to bioprinting, there are few applications nowadays involved in the tissues production in regenerative medicine. Many different tissues have been successfully bioprinted as reported in many journal articles [ 90 ] including bone, cartilage, skin, and even heart valves. However, the bioprinted tissues and organs are at the laboratory level; a long way needs to be travelled to achieve successful clinical application [ 91 ].

Last but not the least, the additive manufacturing in terms of drug printing may also represent an innovative technique in the production of patient-specific medicine with regard to the composition and the dose needed by the patients. The drug-printing introduces the concept of tailor-made drugs in order to make drugs safer and more effective. Especially for children, furthermore, drug-printing represents the possibility of choosing colour, shape, and design of the medication, reducing the resistance in taking them. Imagine a paediatrician talking to a four-year-old child who is having trouble adjusting to taking daily doses of steroids after being diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy the previous month. 3D printing allows us to design in particular shape the drug, making medicine more appealing to the child [ 92 ]. It is amental to note that changing the shape of a capsule does not have to lead to different dose and drug properties, such as drug release or dissolution rate [ 93 ].

5. Conclusions

The 3D printing in medical field and design needs to think outside the norm for changing the health care. The three main pillars of this new technology are the ability to treat more people where it previously was not feasible, to obtain outcomes for patients and less time required under the direct case of medical specialists. In few words, 3D printing consists in “enabling doctors to treat more patients, without sacrificing results” [ 94 ].

Therefore, like any new technology, 3D printing has introduced many advantages and possibilities in the medical field. Each specific case in which 3D printing has found application shown in this analysis is a demonstration of this. However, it must be accompanied by an updated and current legislation in order to guarantee its correct use.

Acknowledgments

The publication of the article was funded through the collaboration between Aid4Med S.r.l. and the Universitè Libre de Bruxelles.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, a 3d printing short course: a case study for applications in the geoscience teaching and communication for specialists and non-experts.

• Reservoir Geomechanics Research Group, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

3D printing developed as a prototyping method in the early 1980s, yet it is considered as a 21st century technology for transforming digital models into tangible objects. 3D printing has recently become a critical tool in the geoscience research, education, and technical communication due to the expansion of the market for 3D printers and materials. 3D printing changes the perception of how we interact with our data and how we explain our science to non-experts, researchers, educators, and stakeholders. Hence, a one-day short course was designed and delivered to a group of professors, students, postdoctoral fellows, and technical staff to present the application of 3D printing in teaching and communication concepts in the geoscience. This case study was aimed at evaluating how a diverse group of participants with geoscience and engineering background and no prior experience with computer-aided modeling (CAD) or 3D printing could understand the principles of different 3D printing techniques and apply these methods in their respective disciplines. In addition, the course evaluation questionnaire allowed us to assess human perception of tangible and digital models and to demonstrate the effectiveness of 3D printing in data communication. The course involved five modules: 1) an introduction lecture on the 3D printing methods and materials; 2) an individual CAD modeling exercise; 3) a tour to 3D printing facilities with hands-on experience on model processing; 4) a tour to experimentation facilities where 3D-printed models were tested; and 5) group activities based on the examples of how to apply 3D printing in the current or future geoscience research and teaching. The participants had a unique opportunity to create a digital design at the beginning of the course using CAD software, analyze it and 3D print the final model at the end of the course. While this course helped the students understand how rendering algorithms could be used as a learning aid, educators gained experience in rapid preparation of visual aids for teaching, and researchers gained skills on the integration of the digital datasets with 3D-printed models to support societal and technical objectives.

Introduction

3D printing is a 21st century technology for transforming digital models into physical objects. This technology is rapidly evolving, with more access to 3D printing machines and materials ( Wohlers Report, 2019 ). This is an innovative tool in medical ( Baden et al., 2015 ) and biomedical sciences ( Hoy, 2013 ), engineering ( Meyers et al., 2016 ; Boyajian et al., 2020 ), and communication ( Baden et al., 2015 ; Malmström et al., 2020 ). 3D printing revolutionizes how we interact with our data and how we explain our science to non-experts ( Horowitz and Schultz, 2014 ). Creating repeatable, tangible models is emerging in the geoscience education and research as well as in the related industries, such as petroleum recovery, groundwater storage, and carbon dioxide sequestration ( Ishutov et al., 2018 ). One of the biggest advantages of 3D printing is that all the processes involved in the creation of a 3D object, from generating the design to obtaining the printed part, facilitate the learning of concepts and tools, which also develops creativity and communication skills. Earth science data are often modeled in 3D, and 3D printers can provide this 3D visualization and tangible aspect of digital data ( Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1 . Major benefits of using 3D printing in geosciences. It is useful for developing creativity and design skills through 3D modeling. 3D printing is a convenient tool for rapid manufacture of learning and teaching aids. Any 2D or 3D model can be replicated for a better communication, especially among non-specialists. Any digital data can be reproduced with 3D printing, even if the physical sample does not exist anymore. Research ideas and concepts can be repeatedly tested on the 3D-printed samples. All data can be retrieved or repeated from the digital repositories, which include files of 3D-printed models.

3D printing or so-called additive manufacturing of an object involves deposition of a material layer by layer ( Squelch, 2017 ). Therefore, this technology enables manufacturing models in various sizes and proportions (e.g., small objects can be printed large, so that more details are visible or large objects can be scaled down, so that one can hold the planet in the hand). Sustainable learning through a tangible approach is critical for understanding of complex geologic ideas, where learners can collect, gather and evaluate information about the exterior of the model and internal structures ( Szulżyk-Cieplak et al., 2014 ). Moreover, the same model can be used to communicate these ideas to others, including non-experts in a technical subject ( Dadi et al., 2014 ). 3D printing is essential for commination with impaired people, especially students who require special needs for education ( Kostakis et al., 2015 ; Jo et al., 2016 ; Pantazis and Priavolou, 2017 ; Koehler et al., 2018 ). In the Earth science curriculum, those students can learn common topics such as volcanoes or plate tectonics by using 3D-printed models in the classroom or at home. Buehler et al. (2016) demonstrates an example of a short course for students with intellectual disabilities in an inclusive context that results in enhancing digital literacy skills and reducing stigmas about these individuals at a community level.

Application of 3D printing in high-school education has already shown enhanced haptic perception of the learning material. Elrod (2016) emphasized that if 3D printing would be used in the K-12 environment, students could be better prepared for careers in emerging fields of technology [e.g., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM disciplines)]. Schelly et al. (2015) demonstrated that even a 3-day short course for middle- and high-school teachers from a variety of disciplines (sciences, engineering, and arts) gained a high interest in utilizing this technology in their classrooms. Chiu et al. (2015) presented a successful model for learning, self-learning, and mastery learning approaches for freshman students with different levels of technological literacy using 3D printers. Reggia et al. (2015) suggested that providing engineering students with an opportunity to perform a project-based design course using 3D printing was an essential curricular element in many engineering programs. Chien and Chu (2018) proposed that 3D printing could enable high-school students to improve their ability to transform from STEM to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) using 3D printers and to create a bridging curriculum with respect to high-school and college students.

Roy and Brine (2017) developed a coursework model to build intellectual capital for the next generation who would vastly depend on 3D printing, because they would shape a smart community in both developing and developed economy context. Martin et al. (2014) explained an idea of “think globally, produce locally,” where 3D printing would become more affordable with the versatility of machines and the ability to engage students with many different STEM-based activities. Gatto et al. (2015) showed that engineering education is on the course of adapting to the social and industrial revolution brought by additive manufacturing, because the latter allowed for sharing digital data in repositories and repeatedly reproducing the data to test ideas and concepts ( Figure 1 ).

For the geoscience education, not many examples are found in the literature for using 3D printing in any full-time curriculum or short courses. Ford and Minshall (2019) demonstrate how teaching models of terrains, fossils, and mineral crystals can complement digital models for a better perception of 3D features. 3D printing is currently used in four geoscience areas, primarily for research and communication: paleontology, geomorphology, porous rocks, geomechanics ( Figure 2 ). These 3D-printed models help organizing a full description, classification, and preservation of geologic specimens. Resolution of 3D printers determines the accuracy of internal and external features of 3D-printed models and hence affects the repeatability of the digital design in different materials ( Figure 2 ). These characteristics are critical not only for creating teaching aids in the Earth Science curriculum, but also for conducting experimental research with 3D-pritned specimens ( Ishutov et al., 2018 ). 3D printing also has value for communication of geoscience to non-specialist audiences to convey technical information, to support legal arguments, and to provide general knowledge of the nature. Currently, there is no universal short course that can provide fast, but positive learning experience of digital modeling and 3D printing to understand and explain geologic concepts among both experts and generalists.

FIGURE 2 . Applications of 3D printing in the geoscience research areas: (A) paleontology, (B) geomorphology, (C) porous rocks, and (D) geomechanics. A blue chart indicates the characteristics of 3D-printed models that are critical for each of the geoscience areas. Materials used in a specific application have different physical and chemical properties, which affect the resolution of a 3D-printed model. 3D printer’s hardware and post-processing of 3D-printed models determine the accuracy of external and internal features. A combination of the three previous characteristics affects the repeatability of a digital design 3D-printed in multiple copies.

This course was developed to test how a group of participants from STEM disciplines, but with various academic backgrounds could perceive the fundamentals of available 3D printing techniques and materials and their relative merits. With little or no prior knowledge of CAD modeling and 3D printing, participants learnt about applications of 3D printing in studies of reservoir rocks ( Squelch 2017 ), fossils ( Rahman et al., 2012 ), geomechanics ( Hodder et al., 2018 ), geomorphology ( Hasiuk and Harding, 2016 ), and porous media ( Ishutov, 2019 ). This one-day short course was divided into five modules and involved students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and professors interested in current advances of 3D printing in research and teaching. In addition, participants explored the application of 3D printing in a technical communication. The objectives of the study included: 1) to evaluate if learners with versatile educational and cultural backgrounds could perceive the basic concepts of 3D printing techniques and material properties to provide an assessment of 3D-printed models for research in their respective discipline; 2) to test if fast learning of CAD modeling and 3D printing could help the participants utilize 3D-printed models to explain geologic concepts to generalist audiences; and 3) to prove that 3D-printed models were effective tools for the geoscience education.

Materials and Methods

The short course was designed for the participants without prior experience of CAD modeling or 3D printing. In addition, the course was open for students, professors, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and research associates from the geoscience and engineering disciplines. The short course took place at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada and involved 50 participants. The course learning outcomes were: 1) to understand capabilities and limitations of different 3D printing techniques; 2) to demonstrate how to digitally design 3D-printable models using CAD software, web platforms, and computed tomography data; 3) to provide the assessment of digital models and their relative replicas 3D-printed from real data; and 4) to characterize how 3D printing can increase the effectiveness of teaching and data communication.

Course Organization and Materials

The short course was organized in five modules: 1) an introduction lecture on the 3D printing methods and materials; 2) an individual CAD modeling exercise; 3) a tour to 3D printing facilities with hands-on experience on model processing; 4) a tour to experimentation facilities where 3D-printed models are tested; and 5) group activities based on the examples of how to apply 3D printing in current or future geoscience research and teaching ( Table 1 ). Each module was taught by one of the four instructors, and facility tours were led by four instructors, two instructors per facility. All instructions on how to complete each module were organized in a digital e-book (pdf).

TABLE 1 . A brief description of topics covered in each module of the short course.

Module 1 included a lecture on the history of “rapid prototyping” and how 3D printing evolved as a tool for engineering industries. In addition, the workflow of creating a digital model and transferring it into a tangible object was covered. The model preparation for 3D printing was explained with examples of using printing specifications, such as the thickness of each layer, the vertical and horizontal dimensions, and the print speed. The lecture also contained post-processing methods, such as ultraviolet (UV) light curing or removal of support material that held the internal porous structure and external elements during printing to avoid deformation or damage of intricate designs. Instructors discussed 3D printing methods that differed by power source, resolution, precision, accuracy, build volume, materials, and price. The importance and applications of 3D-printed models were covered briefly for the areas of geoscience and engineering. At the end of the lecture, participants had a discussion session with instructors ( Figure 3A ).

FIGURE 3 . Photographs of the short course modules. (A) Module 1 “Overview of the 3D printing technology.” Course instructors presented a lecture on common additive manufacturing methods and materials and showed examples of 3D-printed models. (B) Module 2 “The art of making 3D-printable models.” Participants learned basic skills of CAD modeling using TinkerCAD. (C) Module 3 “Elko Garage Tour.” Live 3D printing process was shown to participants. (D) Module 4 “GeoPrint Tour.” Participants were shown industrial scale printing and experimental program performed with 3D-printed models. (E) Module 5 “Application of 3D printing in the geoscience.” Discussion of specific applications of geoscience models in edication and research.

Module 2 involved an individual CAD modeling exercise using an online platform on laptops or tablets ( Figure 3B ). The scale of 3D-printed models varied over the orders of magnitude: from nanometer-size features to the size of the 3D printer’s build volume. This activity was aimed at teaching the participants to create complex geological models (like rocks and fossils) using common shapes (e.g., cylinders, cubes) or multi-scale elements, which were then translated for 3D printing. At the end of this exercise, participants were able to export their model of choice for 3D printing and receive at the end of the course.

Module 3 represented a tour to the Elko Engineering Garage (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada) that introduced the participants to the activities associated with creating and 3D printing digital designs as well as post-processing of 3D-printed models ( Figure 3C ). Participants were exposed a variety of 3D printers and post-processing tools, as well as they had an opportunity to investigate a 3D laser scanner. Instructors made connections of the material covered in the lecture, such as material properties, 3D printing resolution, and model dimensions with the real applications in workspace. Participants were able to observe the 3D printing process of the digital models that they designed in module 2 and had a hands-on experience on post-processing their models to make give them a smooth, finished look.

Module 4 involved a visit to the GeoPRINT facility (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), where an industrial-grade sand printer and a high-resolution stereolithography printer were located ( Figure 3D ). This tour introduced participants to two specific 3D printers used for geomechanical and flow research at Reservoir Geomechanics Research Group. Participants explored about the differences in material preparation, printing, and post-processing between these two technologies.

Module 5 included a group exercise on the comparison of CAD models for porous rocks, fossils and geomorphic features with their 3D-printed counterparts ( Figure 3E ). Participants assessed the differences in material finishes, accuracy of external and internal elements, and scales of 3D printing (using criteria in Figure 2 ). In addition, there was a discussion of potential application of 3D-printed models in the geoscience experiments to validate numerical simulations and complement existing laboratory tests. Instructors facilitated the discussion of 3D-printing techniques that participants have seen in modules 3 and 4 and how they could be applied to fundamental research in the areas of multi-phase fluid flow and reactive transport, discrete fracture networks, geomorphology, and paleontology ( Figure 3E ).

3D Printers and Software

Out of seven ASTM categories of 3D printing, four methods were shown in this short course: stereolithography, binder jetting, material extrusion, and material jetting. All 3D printers belonging to these categories were demonstrated in Modules 3 and 4. Materials used for demonstration of 3D printing techniques included polymers, plastics, sand, and resins.

The software used in module 2 for CAD modeling exercises was Autodesk TinkerCAD ( https://www.tinkercad.com ). It is a free online platform that requires only registration with email. The software used for processing of digital designs before 3D printing was Autodesk Meshmixer ( http://www.meshmixer.com ). It is a freeware that can be installed on most operating systems.

Post-Course Questionnaire

The course survey is proved to be one of the effective forms of analysis of the short course efficiency ( Chiu et al., 2015 ; Schelly et al., 2015 ; Meyers et al., 2016 ; Pantazis and Priavolou, 2017 ; Ford and Minshall, 2019 ; Assante et al., 2020 ). The surveys are usually conducted before and after the course to assess how learning objectives are fulfilled. In each module, the following criteria were used to build the course evaluation survey:

• fundamentals of 3D printing and its basic operating principles;

• advantages and disadvantages of 3D printing technologies;

• performance and functional constraints of 3D printing for specific applications.

• complete 3D-printing sequence of designing, fabricating, and measuring models;

• source of mismatch between digital and 3D-printed models.

• causes of errors and irregularities in 3D-printed models;

• hands-on experience of 3D printing in class for improved student understanding of subject matter.

• important 3D printing research challenges;

• resources to support experiments for teaching and classroom projects.

• understanding if humans learn better when using 3D-printed models;

• current and future 3D printing applications.

At the end of the course, instructors distributed an electronic evaluation form to all participants and asked them to complete it within 1 h. The questions in the survey were composed in a Google Docs form to allow for anonymous and individual response from each participant, who was required to indicate only their academic level. The post-course questionnaire was segmented into sections: 1) overall recommendation for the short course; 2) assessment of course materials (e-booklet, lecture slides, exercise instructions; 3) course content (cohesiveness of modules, ease of learning the material, laboratory tours, and visual aids); 4) time spent on each module; and 5) evaluation of instructors’ teaching abilities; 6) effectiveness of course learning outcomes. Section 1 responses were based on Yes/No scale. Responses in sections 2, 3, 5 were collected using the following scheme: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. Responses in section 4 were registered using the following scheme: not enough, adequate, too much, no opinion. The last section was evaluated using Likert scale out of 5, where a higher value is a more positive response.

Results and Discussion

The short course involved 50 participants from geosciences and engineering ( Figure 4A ); it was expected to receive mixed comments about the course contents and organization of modules. Nonetheless, 97% of all participants responded that the course would be recommended to others ( Figure 4B ). In this case, others were referred to peer students, colleagues, and other academic staff. This outcome was positive to propose the course to various professional organizations as a customized workshop, e.g., for industry professionals interested in the use of 3D printing in research and technical communication. The instructors observed that despite the differences in age and academic background, the participants communicated with each other in a friendly manner. Based on the results of the post-course questionnaire, the short course outcomes were assessed for the adequacy and organization of the course materials, structure, and coherence of the course modules, and efficiency of the course instructors and learning objectives.

FIGURE 4 . Demographics of the short course participants. (A) Indication of the academic level and/or position. (B) Responses of participants from (A) to the question: “Will you recommend this short course to others?”

Course Materials

An e-book contained a set of short, descriptive instructions with images and figures about each module ( Figure 5 ) that was useful to most participants. Course objectives were clear, so that the short course agenda was understood by learners with different backgrounds (24 positive responses out of 32 responses in total). In addition, the survey showed that the e-book was a valuable component of the course as it helped navigating through activities and exercises (27 positive responses out of 33 responses in total). On the other hand, not all participants found the e-book visually appealing and suggested adding pseudo 3D cartoons that would visually simplify and outline different 3D printing processes (20 positive responses out of 33 responses in total; Figure 6 ). Other comments pointed out on the use of bolded text, underlining or different colors to highlight the key information in the e-book. Also, more than half of the class noted that activities were clearly defined by the instructors and suggested to include more details about the operation of software as numbered bullet points so there would be a step-by-step tutorial (21 positive responses out of 35 responses in total; Figure 6 ). A few additional notes were that the introductory lecture slides in module 1 were cohesive and well organized. For the next run of the course, instructors will prepare a short workflow with bullet points for each activity and exercise and will place them in the e-book as a support material. More images and snapshots will be added for each activity to allow the participants to navigate between the exercises.

FIGURE 5 . An example of the module instructions from the course e-book. The full version of the e-book was available for participants a day before the course. Each module contained synopsis and a set of exercises.

FIGURE 6 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the course materials, such as e-booklet and slides. All the course activities were described in the e-booklet provided on the short course day.

Course Content

The course content was developed using several approaches: lecture slides, individual exercises, group exercises, and facility tours. The majority of the class responded that modules were cohesive (29 positive responses out of 33 responses in total; Figure 7 ). Participants were mostly engaged during the visits to the Elko Garage and GeoPrint facilities (modules 3 and 4), because these tours improved their understanding of the 3D printing process (30 positive responses out of 32 responses in total). Observing the printing methods and interaction with 3D-printed models provided a motivation for the learners to incorporate this technology in their research, teaching, or other activities (29 positive responses out of 34 responses in total; Figure 7 ). In addition, the majority of participants could understand all aspects of digital design, processing, and post-processing of 3D-printed models via the CAD modeling exercise (module 2) (31 positive responses out of 34 responses it total). Instructors observed that even those participants who did not have any experience with digital modeling of simple shapes could learn it fast, because at the end of the exercise everyone was on the same level.

FIGURE 7 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the course content. Participants assessed each activity at the end of the short course. *A question about the advanced 3D printing course is whether participants would like to have a short course on the applications of 3D printing in their respective discipline (not geoscience).

The group exercise involving comparison of digital models with their 3D-printed counterparts and the discussion of applications in the geosciences (Module 5) was expected to be challenging, because the participants were divided into mixed groups of 10 people to avoid accumulating representatives of the same department and academic level in one group. E.g., one group might have consisted of two undergraduate students from civil engineering and geology, three professors from electrical engineering, computer engineering and geophysics, three postdoctoral fellows from mechanical engineering, and petroleum engineering, and two research associates from atmospheric science and computer science, respectively. Most of the class responded positively to such combination of groups, because it allowed them to share a broader spectrum of ideas given the versatility of backgrounds (32 positive responses out of 35 responses in total; Figure 7 ). Some participants responded that they would prefer to classify the groups by the department, so that they would share the same interest in 3D printing and might make the group work more cohesive. This model could be another option for the group activity, where the groups could be formed by the department only, but the course contents would need to be more general, rather than focusing on the geoscience and engineering applications.

Participants would also asked to have more group activities to share the knowledge learnt, which confirmed that this intentional split into mixed groups worked well for leaning the unknown concepts. A few people were not interested in the geoscience applications and would have liked to participate in the content related to their discipline only or in a more generic content. This was a viable comment, and more than half of the class responded that they would like to have an advanced 3D printing course to explore the applications in their relative subjects of interest (26 positive responses out of 30 responses in total; Figure 7 ). Perhaps a separate short course covering specific applications of 3D printing in STEM disciplines might be developed to satisfy this interest. The most expected comment was that participants were thinking of getting their own 3D printer to manufacture models for research, teaching, and communication.

Each module had a different time period for completion, because it depended on the speed of the instructor’s delivery and the pace of participants ( Figure 8 ). It was designed to spend more time on individual and group exercises (Modules 2 and 5), so that the pace between the participants could be averaged as some people needed more time to learn new tools. In general, almost all learners (29 out of 33) agreed that the 50-min lecture in module 1 was sufficient to grasp the main concepts. Some participants (12 out of 33) noted that they would need more time to go through the functionalities of the software in Module 2 to complete the CAD exercises. In future, this module could be timed in a different way, where the participants would have an extensive, detailed introduction into the software and then they would be given a set of exercises to complete. Also, for those who could complete a mandatory set of exercises faster, additional activities would be provided. For the group exercises (module 5), about half of the class completed their assignments on time, while a quarter of the class felt that the time could be reduced ( Figure 8 ). To adjust this module, more exercises would be provided, specifically a small section discussing case studies in the geoscience.

FIGURE 8 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the time spent on each module of the short course.

Efficiency of Instructors

The next set of questions in the survey was aimed at revealing any flaws in the style and structure of the instruction. It was found that the majority of the class was satisfied with the teaching style and delivery of the modules by instructors (28 positive responses out of 33 responses in total; Figure 9 ). One participant noted that it would be useful to have solutions for each exercise, mainly for the ones related to the group activity. The answers could not be compiled for each activity as they varied by the group and the amount of material covered in each case. A few participants would like to have more one-to-one communications with instructors, but it might not always possible, given the size of the class and time allocated for each activity. It is foreseen that the class size will be reduced to have more time assisting each participant in all activities, even though the majority of participants (31 out of 33; Figure 9 ) felt supported during the course.

FIGURE 9 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the instructors’ delivery of the short course.

The survey showed that instructors were knowledgeable (32 positive responses out of 33 responses in total) and well-prepared (30 positive responses out of 34 responses in total) for the course, which fulfilled the course objective of sustainable learning and communication through tangible models. It is confirmed that 3D printing promoted the curiosity among the learners and facilitated an interest in creation of a model simultaneously with the instructor. Developing creative potential entailed improving a problem-based approach to demonstrate theoretical concepts that could be accessible by different groups of participants. This short course demonstrated that diverse groups were able to assimilate, apply, and describe new knowledge more effectively, including collaborative and individual learning. There is a need in studying how these methods can complement traditional instruction in terms of retention of material and motivating learners to study and develop their communication and problem-solving skills.

Efficiency of Learning Objectives

The course learning objectives were evaluated during interactive exercises of the course as well as post-course questionnaire. After completion of each module, participants were asked to complete the same set of three questions based on the course objectives. Their responses were averaged using Likert scale, where more positive responses were approaching 5 and less positive responses were approaching 1 ( Table 2 ). Participants were scoring how each of the three objectives was fulfilled when they completed modules subsequently. It was evident that more confidence was gained toward the end of the short course when all three course objectives were assessed (increasing scores from Module 1 to Module 5 in Table 2 ). While not all participants had geoscience background, collaborative learning is proven to be effective in enhancing creativity and hence enabling a large class to adopt the new technology. Post-course questionaries demonstrated that faculty, students, research fellows, and technicians could effectively work in teams to understand basic concepts of 3D printing techniques and material properties. They used this information to provide an assessment of 3D-printed models and to generate ideas for research in their respective disciplines.

TABLE 2 . Comparison of student responses on fulfilling the course learning objectives.

Individual CAD modeling exercise (module 2) helped the participants understand how geological and engineering models could be designed and utilized to explain ideas and concepts to generalist audiences. In module 5, instructors provided an example of 3D-printed porous rock created from a digital model ( Figure 10 ). All participants were asked to use this workflow to characterize how the rock porosity could have been formed and to explain why the rock grains had angular or rounded geometry and how they were transported to form a larger formation. Participants with a geoscience background were assessing responses of participants that did not have any background in the geoscience. It was noted that comparison of images, 3D digital models, and 3D-printed samples altogether provided better understanding of the rock properties rather than each model separately. Also. participants with good technical background in CAD within the team could help teaching other teammates, providing additional peer learning element in the process.

FIGURE 10 . Workflow for generation of 3D-printed samples from digital models. Source data are either optical or CT images of natural rocks (e.g., Berea sandstone). Images are segmented into pores and grains; the grain volume is transferred to 3D printing software as a CAD model. Selected 3D printer creates a tangible model layer-by-layer (polymer in this example). Pore space is filled with support material (soft polymer) that is removed by post-processing.

Module 5 was very useful for synthesizing previous modules and providing exercises linking CAD modeling from module 2 with 3D printing methods presented in module 1 and materials observed in modules 3 and 4. Participants were asked to choose one model for which both CAD and 3D-printed models were available ( Figure 11 ). Their task was to prepare a 1-min presentation of the model intended for general audience. The exercise was aimed at evaluating if 3D-printed models could improve geoscience learning for non-specialists. This collaborative learning approach demonstrated that expertise from students with different backgrounds could contribute to the cognitive process. Instead of learning under the instructions of tutors, participants collaboratively worked and learnt together. Participants noted that those teammates without geoscience background provided more intuitive and comprehensive description of selected models. It might be due to the fact that specialists could not often formulate higher-level explanation of concepts and phenomena.

FIGURE 11 . Examples of 3D-printed models used in course exercises. (A) Fossil and rock specimens. (B) Geomorphology and porous models.

Post-course questionnaire showed that 3D printing was an efficient tool in teaching and communication geological data and hypotheses to many types of diverse audiences. This study proved that non-specialists could learn, understand, and explain scientific concepts without prior knowledge about them. This finding is important because 3D printing can be used in many university curricula where students with any background can learn sciences in any environment. In particular, tangible aspect of 3D-printed models is vital for the geoscience education where most of the data are in a 3D format. Future development of the short course will involve several examples of non-geoscience data (e.g., engineering, medicine) to challenge participants in interpretation of concepts that are far beyond their expertise. This approach will help identifying if 3D-printed models are useful in communicating more complex phenomena to non-specialist audience.

3D printing is an emerging technology in the geoscience that provides additional teaching support, enhances technical communication using visual aids, and enables repeatable experimentation in research. While the process of incorporating this technology into the regular curriculum in academic institutions may take years, short courses can help this process by improving student and faculty engagement and by developing skills for a more qualitative knowledge acquisition. The short course presented in this study was useful for a diverse group of participants including professors, students, postdoctoral fellows, and technicians from the geoscience and engineering disciplines, because it allowed them to communicate geological concepts using digital models and their tangible counterparts. Participants demonstrated that this technology allowed them having the capacity for modification and sharing digital data and supporting educators who wanted to produce teaching models without prior expertise and in a rapid manner.

While this one-day short course had five modules, participants acknowledged that the time spent on each module was adequate as the modules contained the right amount of instructions and activities. It was designed in a way that participants would create their digital model, learn about different 3D printing techniques, observe how these techniques worked live and how 3D-printed models were experimented with in the laboratory, and finally 3D print their own model and discuss its properties. It was noted by the participants that course materials, such as e-booklet and slides with instructions, helped them digesting technical information in a cohesive way.

The main objectives of the short course was fulfilled, because the majority of participants responded that they would start using 3D printing for their research, teaching, or communication. Moreover, many participants had an interest in taking an advanced short course on the applications of this technology in their respective disciplines and to recommend this short course to others. Each module can certainly be modified and adjusted according to the background of the audience. This short course can be a primer for educators willing to introduce creative modeling in their teaching schedule and prepare students for problem-solving skills using tangible models. Making testable analogs of natural phenomena for the geoscience researchers is critical and can be achieved through acquiring CAD modeling skills in this course. Besides creating visual and teaching aids, this technology is a powerful tool in communication, as shown in the short course, because the participants with diverse academic backgrounds could discuss ideas and concepts without prior knowledge about them, only using 3D-printed models.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the relevant individuals for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author Contributions

SI was the primary designer of the short course contents and the paper outline. He presented a poster at 2019 American Geophysical Union Conference on that study. SI developed exercises for the short course and prepared introduction and methods sections. KH developed presentation slides for the short course and wrote sections on results and discussion. RC was responsible for the introduction and conclusions. Figures were collected and analyzed by all authors. GZ-N was responsible for the lab tours.

The course was partially funded by MIP-CONACYT-280097 Grant, Mexico and NSERC 549236, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The funds covered the costs of 3D-printed models for participants of the short course.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the University of Alberta and Faculty of Engineering for the opportunity to host this short course on campus. Our special gratitude is to the Elko Engineering Garage for providing a demonstration tour and 3D printing the short course models. We are grateful to the Reservoir Geomechanics Research Group [RG] 2 for support in preparation of this course. We also thank NSERC for support in continuous running of GeoPRINT GeoInnovation Environment at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Assante, D., Cennamo, G. M., and Placidi, L. (2020). “3D Printing in Education: an European Prospective,” in Proceedings from the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) . Porto: Portugal , 1133–1138.

Google Scholar

Baden, T., Chagas, A. M., Gage, G., Marzullo, T., Prieto-Godino, L. L., and Euler, T. (2015). Open Labware: 3-D Printing Your Own Lab Equipment. Plos Biol. 13, e1002086. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002086

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyajian, M. K., Lubner, R. J., Roussel, L. O., Crozier, J. W., Ryder, B. A., and Woo, A. S. (2020). A 3D Printed Suturing Trainer for Medical Students. Clin. Teach. 17, 1–5. doi:10.1111/tct.13176

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Buehler, E., Comrie, N., Hofmann, M., McDonald, S., and Hurst, A. (2016). Investigating the Implications of 3D Printing in Special Education. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 8, 1–28. doi:10.1145/2870640

Chien, Y.-H., and Chu, P.-Y. (2018). The Different Learning Outcomes of High School and College Students on a 3D-Printing STEAM Engineering Design Curriculum. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 16, 1047–1064. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9832-4

Chiu, P. H. P., Chiu Lai, K. W., Fan, T. K. F., and Cheng, S. H. (2015). “A Pedagogical Model for Introducing 3D Printing Technology in a Freshman Level Course Based on a Classic Instructional Design Theory,” in Proceedings From the IEEE Frontiers In Education Conference (FIE) . El Paso, TX, USA , 1–6. doi:10.1109/FIE.2015.7344287

Dadi, G. B., Goodrum, P. M., Taylor, T. R., and Maloney, W. F. (2014). Effectiveness of Communication of Spatial Engineering Information through 3D CAD and 3D Printed Models. Vis. Eng. 2, 114. doi:10.1186/s40327-014-0009-8

Elrod, R. E. (2016). Classroom Innovation through 3D Printing. Libr. Hi Tech. News , 33 (3), 5–7. doi:10.1108/LHTN-12-2015-0085

Ford, S., and Minshall, T. (2019). Invited Review Article: Where and How 3D Printing Is Used in Teaching and Education. Addit. Manuf. 25, 131–150. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028

Gatto, A., Bassoli, E., Denti, L., Iuliano, L., and Minetola, P. (2015). Multi-disciplinary Approach in Engineering Education: Learning with Additive Manufacturing and Reverse Engineering. Rapid Prototyping J. 21, 598–603. doi:10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0134

Hasiuk, F., and Harding, C. (2016). Touchable Topography: 3D Printing Elevation Data and Structural Models to Overcome the Issue of Scale. Geology. Today. 32, 16–20. doi:10.1111/gto.12125

Hodder, K. J., Nychka, J. A., and Chalaturnyk, R. J. (2018). Process Limitations of 3D Printing Model Rock. Prog. Additive Manufacturing 3, 172–182. doi:10.1007/s40964-018-0042-6

Horowitz, S. S., and Schultz, P. H. (2014). Printing Space: Using 3D Printing of Digital Terrain Models in Geosciences Education and Research. J. Geosci. Education. 62 (1), 138–145. doi:10.5408/13-031.1

Hoy, M. B. (2013). 3D Printing: Making Things at the Library. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 32 (1), 93–99. doi:10.1080/02763869.2013.749139

Ishutov, S. (2019). Establishing Framework for 3D Printing Porous Rock Models in Curable Resins. Transp Porous Med. 129, 431–448. doi:10.1007/s11242-019-01297-9

Ishutov, S., Jobe, T. D., Zhang, S., Gonzalez, M., Agar, S. M., Hasiuk, F. J., et al. (2018). Three-dimensional Printing for Geoscience: Fundamental Research, Education, and Applications for the Petroleum Industry. Bulletin. 102, 1–26. doi:10.1306/0329171621117056

Jo, W., Hee, I., J., Harianto, R. A., So, J. H., Lee, H., Ju Lee, H., et al. (2016). Instead of Seeing and Hearing, Students Can Use Their Sense of Touch to Recognize the 3D Tactile Aids, Which Might Improve Their Learning and Memory Processes. J. Vis. Impairment Blindness. 110, 115–121. doi:10.1159/000390709

Koehler, K. E., Wild, T. A., and Tikkun, S. (2018). Implications of 3-D Printing for Teaching Geoscience Concepts to Students with Visual Impairments. J. Sci. Educ. Stud. Disabil. 2, 49–81. doi:10.14448/jsesd.10.0004

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., and Giotitsas, C. (2015). Open Source 3D Printing as a Means of Learning: An Educational experiment in Two High Schools in Greece. Telematics Inform. 32, 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.05.001

Malmström, H., Enger, J., Karlsteen, M., and Weidow, J. (2020). Integrating CAD, 3D-Printing Technology and Oral Communication to Enhance Students' Physics Understanding and Disciplinary Literacy. Eur. J. Phys. 41, 065708. doi:10.1088/1361-6404/aba6bd

Martin, R. K., Bowden, N. S., and Merril, C. (2014). 3D Printing in Technology and Engineering Education. Technol. Eng. Teach. 73, 30–35. doi:10.1163/9789004415133_006

Meyers, K. L., Morgan, A. S., and Conner, B. P. (2016). 3D Printing to Introduce Design in a Cornerstone Project. Glob. J. Eng. Educ. 18, 22–29. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-0946-2_2

Pantazis, A., and Priavolou, C. (2017). 3D Printing as a Means of Learning and Communication: The 3 Ducation Project Revisited. Telematics Inform. 34, 1465–1476. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.010

Rahman, I. A., Adcock, K., and Garwood, R. J. (2012). Virtual Fossils: a New Resource for Science Communication in Paleontology. Evo Edu Outreach 5, 635–641. doi:10.1007/s12052-012-0458-2

Reggia, E., Calabro, K., and Albrecht, J. (2015). “A Scalable Instructional Method to Introduce First-Year Engineering Students to Design and Manufacturing Processes by Coupling 3D Printing with CAD Assignments,” in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition . Seattle, WA . doi:10.18260/p.23447

Roy, D., and Brine, J. (2017). “3D Printing for Multidisciplinary Education: a Technology with Diverse Potential,” in Proceedings Of the INTED2017 Conference . Valencia, Spain . doi:10.21125/inted.2017.0039

Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., and Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D Printing Technologies for Education: Bringing Additive Manufacturing to the Classroom. J. Vis. Languages Comput. 28, 226–237. doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.01.004

Squelch, A. (2017). 3D Printing Rocks for Geo-Educational, Technical, and Hobbyist Pursuits. Geosphere 14, 360–366. doi:10.1130/GES01364.1

Szulżyk-Cieplak, J., Duda, A., and Sidor, B. (2014). 3D Printers—New Possibilities in Education. Adv. Sci. Techn. Res. J. 8, 96–101. doi:10.12913/22998624/57510.12913/22998624/568

Wohlers Report (2019). 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. ISBN 978-0-9913332-5-7.

Keywords: 3D printing, learning aid, visualization, reservoir, porous rock, geomodeling, fossils, geomorphology

Citation: Ishutov S, Hodder K, Chalaturnyk R and Zambrano-Narvaez G (2021) A 3D printing Short Course: A Case Study for Applications in the Geoscience Teaching and Communication for Specialists and Non-experts. Front. Earth Sci. 9:601530. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.601530

Received: 01 September 2020; Accepted: 13 May 2021; Published: 28 May 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Ishutov, Hodder, Chalaturnyk and Zambrano-Narvaez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sergey Ishutov, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

3D Printing in Geology and Geophysics: A New World of Opportunities in Research, Outreach, and Education

3D bioprinting: current status and trends—a guide to the literature and industrial practice

• Open access
• Published: 02 December 2021
• Volume 5 , pages 14–42, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Silvia Santoni 1 , 2 ,
• Simone G. Gugliandolo 1 , 2 ,
• Mattia Sponchioni   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8130-6495 2 ,
• Davide Moscatelli 2 &
• Bianca M. Colosimo 1  

21k Accesses

63 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The multidisciplinary research field of bioprinting combines additive manufacturing, biology and material sciences to create bioconstructs with three-dimensional architectures mimicking natural living tissues. The high interest in the possibility of reproducing biological tissues and organs is further boosted by the ever-increasing need for personalized medicine, thus allowing bioprinting to establish itself in the field of biomedical research, and attracting extensive research efforts from companies, universities, and research institutes alike. In this context, this paper proposes a scientometric analysis and critical review of the current literature and the industrial landscape of bioprinting to provide a clear overview of its fast-changing and complex position. The scientific literature and patenting results for 2000–2020 are reviewed and critically analyzed by retrieving 9314 scientific papers and 309 international patents in order to draw a picture of the scientific and industrial landscape in terms of top research countries, institutions, journals, authors and topics, and identifying the technology hubs worldwide. This review paper thus offers a guide to researchers interested in this field or to those who simply want to understand the emerging trends in additive manufacturing and 3D bioprinting.

Graphic abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

3D Bioprinting: Recent Trends and Challenges

Shibu Chameettachal, Sriya Yeleswarapu, … Falguni Pati

Progress in three-dimensional bioprinting

Adam W. Feinberg & Jordan S. Miller

3D and 4D Bioprinting Technologies: A Game Changer for the Biomedical Sector?

Reza Noroozi, Zia Ullah Arif, … Xiongbiao Chen

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Bioprinting is a collection of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, whose aim is to fabricate parts imitating real tissue and organ functionalities by combining both living and non-living materials in a specific three-dimensional (3D) spatial organization structure. As in traditional 3D printing or AM, the target is achieved through the use of computer-aided design (CAD) that represents the fundamental configuration of the target tissue or organ, in order to produce bioengineered structures that have various applications in regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, reconstructive surgery, drug discovery, pharmacokinetics, medical and basic cell-biology research [ 1 ]. Compared to traditional 3D printing or AM processes, bioprinting brings a main innovative feature, namely the printing of living cells within a specific medium called bioink, which adds many different challenges, such as how to avoid the deterioration of living cells while printing constructs that have a 3D volumetric shape similar to the ones of natural tissues and organs.

In light of the application of such manifolds and the growing interest towards personalized medicine, bioprinting methods have attracted increasing attention in recent years from both academia and industry, which has translated into extensive research efforts. During the last decade, many novel procedures and technologies related to biomanufacturing have emerged, ranging from dedicated 3D bioprinters [ 2 ] to specific “raw biomaterials” named bioinks [ 3 , 4 ].

A bioprinter is a 3D printer that realizes biological tissue constructs by the layerwise deposition of living cells. To achieve this aim, bioprinters generally use bioinks, which are soft biomaterials loaded with living cells manipulated according to specific protocols to build biological constructs. The use of secondary dissolvable materials is an additional option to vertically support and protect cells during the printing process.

Although many bioprinting review papers focusing on describing techniques or bioink classifications have been published in recent years [ 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 ], a systematic and quantitative investigation of the actual landscape has not been performed, including the analysis of papers, patents and companies with the aim of highlighting the actual distribution of key players in academia and industry, as well as the main topics currently under study. To the best of our knowledge, the first and only scientometric review on 3D bioprinting cannot be considered up-to-date including the latest scientific innovations in this area, as it was published in 2017 [ 8 ] based on data retrieved from 2000 to mid-2016. In fact, two-thirds of the total publications related to bioprinting to date have been published since 2016.

Given the rapid growth of this special field, the present work is aimed at stimulating the interest of scientists and experts already involved in traditional 3D printing or AM by highlighting the emerging trends and the most recent advancements [ 1 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. This review presents a rational roadmap to the scientific and patenting results produced to date, which can be especially useful for researchers new to the field, as they can quickly obtain the geographical distribution of laboratories and companies actively involved in 3D bioprinting combined with a critical analysis of their output in terms of publications, patents, new tools and manufacturing techniques.

The paper is organized as follows: the literature review results are presented and discussed in “ The academic research trends ” section with a detailed analysis of the most productive authors and active research networks worldwide. “ Market and patent landscape ” section describes the market and patent landscape to identify both emerging and established technology hubs. Finally, the main conclusions are drawn in “ Conclusions ” section.

The academic research trends

Trends in the relevant scientific literature: critical data analysis and classification of applications and trends.

Following previous scientometric studies and AM [ 8 , 12 ], we based our literature analysis considering all research and review papers published in scientific journals included in Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (WoS) in the past 20 years (from 2000 to 2020). We also used SciVal ( https://www.scival.com/ ) as a supporting tool in our query. The latter was focused on bioprinting processes, materials and bioapplications according to the latest definition of bioprinting, and is a modified version of the one used by Rodríguez-Salvador et al. (details in the Supplementary Information). In order to better highlight the most recent trends, a detailed analysis was further performed with reference to scientific results published in the last four years, i.e., since 2016.

A total number of 13,111 papers (11,683 research articles and 2537 review papers) were initially collected using both the Scopus and WoS databases. An extensive cleaning and deduplication process was subsequently performed through EndNote (X9, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, USA), leading to 9314 unique documents, consisting of 7574 research articles and 1740 review papers).

It is worth noting that 79% of these papers were published after 2014 and nearly 53% of total publications were published after 2017. Specifically, 61% (4620 out of 7574) of research articles and 74% (1288 out of 1740) of review papers have been published since 2016, showing an exponential growth of attention on this topic in the scientific literature. Figure  1 shows the total number of publications retrieved from Scopus for the last 20 years, where the steady rise during the past 10 years is clearly visible. This growing number of scientific papers led to a 143% increase in the number of review papers in a single year for 2016. Since then, due to the continuous evolution and rapid innovation in this field, a constant annual growth rate of (28 ± 9)% in review papers has been reported.

3D bioprinting publications by year: articles, blue; reviews, light blue

In order to select the most relevant venues for 3D bioprinting papers, SciVal ( https://www.scival.com/ ) was used to research on the topic T.8060 (Bioprinting; Printability; Tissue Engineering) together with InCites Journal Citation Reports to include information on Impact Factor, Article Citation Median and Review Citation Median focusing on 2018 and 2019 (details are also given in Table S1 of the Supplementary Information).

The number of papers published (usually referred to as ‘scholarly output’ Footnote 1 ) in the past five years was specifically used to select the twenty most productive journals in the bioprinting field. Figure  2 presents the main results of this ranking. As clearly seen in the figure, Biofabrication (with 319 publications, namely 297 articles and 22 review papers), Biomaterials (with 184 publications, namely 166 articles and 18 review papers), and Acta Biomaterialia (with 162 publications, consisting of 124 articles and 38 review papers) are the most prolific journals in this field. Moreover, the percentage of publications focusing on bioprinting with respect to the overall number of papers from 2000 to 2020 was used as an additional indicator of the level of attention to this topic (data retrieved from Scopus), and are shown as dots in Fig.  2 . As expected, Bioprinting (66%), Biofabrication (43%), International Journal of Bioprinting (42%), and Bio-Design and Manufacturing (26%) are the top-focalized journals. Most of these are young journals (founded in 2009, 2015, 2016, and 2018, respectively) focusing on this novel field, with impact factors (IF) revealing their age and their specific field of focus (IF values ranging from 4.10 for Bio-Design and Manufacturing to 8.21 of Biofabrication, compared with older and more generic journals such as Advanced Materials with IF equal to 27.4 Footnote 2 ).

The top twenty journals focusing on 3D bioprinting (SciVal-Scopus). The bars represent the number of publications (blue: articles, light blue: reviews) retrieved from Scopus, while the yellow dots represent the percentage of publications focusing on 3D bioprinting with regards to the total number of publications. The examined time interval is 2000–2020

With regard to review papers, a different classification can be outlined depending on the specific 3D bioprinting technology each paper refers to [ 13 , 14 ]. As for traditional AM processes, different bioprinting techniques vary in the technique of layerwise deposition of biomaterial. Even if the bioprinting literature does not assume the proper terminology defined in the AM standards (ISO/ASTM 52900), AM technologies similar to the ones used for polymers are often adopted. The first class of technologies is based on nozzle-deposition [ 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ], which can have different printing resolutions and speed depending on the precision of the bioprinting head, the nozzle diameter size and the droplet formation mechanism (Fig.  3 a). A second main class of technologies are optical-based, namely the vat photopolymerization (always referred to as stereolithography in the literature on bioprinting [ 11 , 20 , 21 ]) both in its traditional setting and the two-photon polymerization version.

a Different procedures of 3D bioprinting, adapted from Derakhshanfar et al. and Loai et al. [ 22 , 23 ]. b Number of publications for each bioprinting technique (extrusion, stereolithography, laser-assisted and inkjet) for publication years 2000 to 2020; inset: 5-year publication trend for 2016–2020

Figure  3 b shows that extrusion-based bioprinting is the most studied approach in the literature, potentially because it is the most affordable solution for an entry-level bioprinter, and the least expensive technology that allows the use of a wide range of printable biomaterials [ 2 ]. The second and third most widespread techniques are vat photopolymerization and inkjet bioprinting. The former is characterized by many benefits, i.e., higher resolution, a wide variety of bioink viscosities and higher cell density [ 24 , 25 ]. Eventually, thanks to the drop-on-demand (DOD) patterning method available in most bioprinters, jetting is often used for printing smaller features.

The extrusion-based technique is rapidly becoming popular likely because of the great number of entry-level bioprinters that have entered the market in recent years. Meanwhile, vat photopolymerization 3D bioprinting is emerging as a prominent bioprinting method for complex tissues.

Bioprinting research landscape: main applications and emerging topics

The main utilities of 3D bioprinting are in basic medical/cell biology research, the production of pathology models, mini-tissue production for drug screening, and the field of regenerative medicine for the future replacement of tissues and organs [ 5 ]. Within this framework, the ideal workflow of bioprinting should start from retrieving patient-specific cells through biopsy, designing the morphology of the organ or tissue to be replaced, and going back to the patient at the end for the transplantation of a functional organ [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. To the best of our knowledge, this ideal workflow cannot be yet completed from end to end, as different challenges [ 1 , 32 ] need to be overcome. Among the most important ones, vascularization and multi-material printing are the most relevant. Vascularization consists of printing tiny vessels and capillaries that are specifically designed to enable the survival of living cells by the delivery of nutrients and oxygen. Multiple materials are needed to allow different types of cells and hydrogels to be combined in the 3D structure, as it occurs in real biological tissues.

Considering the long-term goals and driving factors, research on 3D bioprinting is now progressing in three major areas:

Application-driven research focusing on specific utilities of 3D bioprinting, i.e., distinct tissues, pathology models or organ-on-a-chip for drug discovery.

Biomaterials research to develop novel bioink formulations that improve printability or support tissue differentiation and maturation, and allow the study of cells to be bioprinted in the construct.

Process-driven research focusing on the printing technology to improve the resolution and accuracy of 3D bioprinting while avoiding cell damage, support the design of complex shapes, reduce printing time and costs, and allow specific functionalities, i.e., multi-material printing.

In order to highlight the main trends in the literature, we clustered papers published since 2000 based on text analytics keywords. The number of articles related to each topic is shown together with its evolution over time in Fig.  4 .

Trends of publication topics on 3D bioprinting over the years. The number of publications relative to each topic are shown over time. The graph was created by counting at most one keyword in each topic class for each publication while having an average of two topics of interest in each publication

A considerable number of publications, especially review papers, are focused at the fundamental aspects of 3D bioprinting, and are included within the class of process-driven papers. For instance, a basic theme such as biomimicry shows steady growth from 2010, while there are newer ideas, including four-dimensional (4D) bioprinting that first appeared in 2016 and is already the subject of 28 papers [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Some publications show the bioprinting workflow [ 27 , 28 , 29 ] and areas [ 42 ], while the ethical aspects of bioprinting are still relatively underrepresented [ 43 ].

Regarding the applications of 3D bioprinting, about 40% of all publications refer to a specific tissue or organ starting with their title (as shown in Table 1 and the Supplementary Information). Many review papers are directed at the bone, cartilage (in particular, articular cartilage), vascularized tissue, cardiac tissues, liver, neural tissue, skin, pancreas, cornea, kidney and muscle, where the first classes mentioned are also the most frequently studied ones (see Fig.  5 ). On the other hand, some emerging topics have received increased attention in the last few years, such as dental tissue, nerve regeneration, lung, intestine, thyroid gland [ 44 ], urethra [ 45 ], and encapsulated T-cells [ 46 ]. This trend might continue in the near future.

Catalogue of all publications based on the automatic assignment of keywords extracted from the titles relative to the tissues and organs (others: articulation, nerve regeneration, kidney, adipose tissue, lung, dental, trachea, ear, pancreas, cornea, aortic valve, esophagus, retina, neural tissue, thyroid gland, urethra, intestine, eye, T-cells). The sum is not equivalent to the total number of publications, since each paper can focus on more than one tissue

Among other applications, graft and implants, pathology models, and organs-on-a-chip are also addressed, with a relative role (i.e., percentage of reviews over the total number of publications) showing an upward trend for the past 10 years. In this area, we can observe studies on traditional topics, such as bioglues, grafts and implants, but also new solutions including the BioPen (which is a handheld device invented by Wallace and co-workers [ 72 ] for printing cartilage in vivo) or the application of bioprinting to cryopreservation.

Since the beginning (the first papers date back to 2002), 3D bioprinting has also been subject to pathology models for in vitro studies of diseases. In particular, 3D-bioprinted cancer models have been described for breast cancer [ 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 ], mammary ductal carcinoma [ 115 ], appendiceal cancer [ 122 ], mesothelioma [ 123 ], glioblastoma and metastasis. Other types of diseases that have been modeled through bioprinting include epilepsy [ 124 ], diabetes [ 110 , 125 ], degenerative diseases, immune-enhanced organoids for immunotherapy screening [ 126 ], and wound healing [ 127 , 128 ]. In all these applications, 3D bioprinting has been utilized for drug discovery, drug screening, and pharmaceutical applications, especially after 2011. On the one hand, the production of pathological tissues and organs using cells from patients leads to a personalized approach on drug discovery [ 129 ]. On the other hand, the serial production of mini-tissues in a standardized manner can be highly useful for the high-throughput screening of large libraries of drugs already available on the market (drug screening [ 130 , 131 ] or novel drug discovery [ 132 ]). In the future, the main target is to 3D print patient-specific models using the patient’s own cells to test different chemotherapeutic drugs in vitro for selecting the most efficient patient-specific therapy. Translational medicine and the implications of 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine, as well as the clinical translation of 3D bioprinted constructs [ 50 , 133 , 134 ], are certainly becoming hot topics in the near future.

Compared to other applications, publications on translational medicine occurred fairly lately (starting in 2009), adding up to 117 publications with more than 60% classified as review papers. In fact, the application of 3D-bioprinted tissues in medicine is still being implemented; to the best of our knowledge, no tissues or organs produced by 3D bioprinting have been implanted in vivo in real patients. However, the 3D printing of biomaterials [ 135 , 136 , 137 ] is increasingly common in medicine, especially for the production of bone and dental implants and grafts, but also in surgery for the production of patient-specific 3D models on which surgeons can train before the actual procedure.

Microfluidics and organs-on-a-chip are some of the latest areas in 3D bioprinting, and, even though the first occurrence dates back to 2004, most of the relevant publications have been published after 2010. At present, only about 100 publications refer to this topic by the title. Publications on organ-on-a-chip models focus either on modeling healthy or pathologic organs [ 138 ], where bioprinting can be useful for studying gene expression and cell differentiation in different healthy conditions by controlling the microfluidics and the microenvironment, or can be used to realize in vitro models for drug screening in pathology studies.

Concerning biomaterials, one of the most exciting field of research relates to bioinks, with about 25% of the whole number of publications on bioprinting focusing on the development of novel bioinks to obtain specific biological, mechanical, and chemical characteristics. This stream of research is fairly new, as research on bioinks was rather limited before the rise of 3D bioprinting. Nowadays, the number of reviews on bioprinting is growing together with the rising need of information to standardize tests on 3D cultures. On this subtopic, the literature focuses on imaging (73 publications), biological characterization (726 publications), resolution (49 publications) and printability (32 publications), with an increasing interest in rheology (21 publications) and structural integrity (9 articles).

Most of the recent papers on bioinks outline the need to find the best compromise between printability and specialization for the specific cell or tissue under study [ 139 , 140 ]. In fact, each cell type requires highly specific conditions in addition to a number of standard requirements (e.g., aqueous environment, sufficient oxygen and nutrient diffusion, appropriate pH, physiological osmolarity of key vitamins and minerals). For example, certain cell types require appropriate sites for attachment, specific substrate properties and space in order to proliferate and produce their extracellular matrix (ECM) [ 141 ]. Bioinks can be classified depending on their origin (natural or synthetic), the type of 3D printing process they can be used in (e.g., bioinks for material extrusion, jetting or photopolymerization differ in their rheological characteristics, shape fidelity and printability features) or the gelation kinetics: ionic, stereocomplex, thermal, photocrosslinking, enzymatic and click chemistry [ 142 ].

Overall, about 15% of all publications focus on innovative cell types in 3D bioprinting, such as stem cells, spheroids, and organoids. This rate is yet to increase mostly because innovative cell types are still under investigation in biology with the aim to overcome open challenges concerning differentiation and maturation. With reference to stem cells in 3D bioprinting [ 143 , 144 ], Skeldon et al. outlined that the main types of stem cells used in this context are mesenchymal stem cells, neural stem cells, and human induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs) [ 143 ]. However, our search found that general multipotent human Adipose Stem Cells (hASCs), as well as nasal and bone marrow stem cells, have also been used. Spheroids have been used in 3D bioprinting since 2003, mostly as the living components of bioinks. Finally, organoids have become one of the latest cell sources used in 3D bioprinting since their first occurrence in 2017 [ 145 ].

Surprisingly, the characterization or development of new process technologies for 3D bioprinting has received rather limited attention in the literature. The rate of publications on this topic decreased from around 30% in 2010 to 15% in 2019. This can be mainly ascribed to the increasing focus on biology, medicine, or material science rather than engineering driving the increase of attention to bioprinting. Secondly, most of the processes used in this field are those borrowed from the traditional 3D printing of polymers with modifications to achieve the desired results. However, a lot of research is lacking, especially for most of the complex technologies. This is clearly visible in the literature, where most of the studied techniques are the laser-based ones (144 articles and 14 reviews) and stereolithography (83 articles and 18 reviews). Inkjet was introduced in 2006 and is among the oldest techniques, while extrusion 3D bioprinting first appeared in 2001, but expanded especially after 2015 with the entry of commercial bioprinters to the market.

Moreover, the application categories include printing techniques that simply exploit existing printing technologies and processes in innovative ways to meet the needs of a specific application (e.g., creating channels to form vascularized tissue). Such is the case of bioprinting in a suspension bath, primarily developed to create vascularized tissues. Among others, one of the most recent techniques is called freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels (FRESH), which has now progressed to its second version and consists of extruding a bioink in a dissolvable suspension bath usually made of a gelatin microparticle slurry, which enables the 3D bioprinting of constructs with higher resolution and is useful for the production of vessels of very small diameters (5 to 10 µm) [ 146 ]. This technique has been used very recently for the 3D bioprinting of a full-size human heart [ 147 ]. An alternative utility of this type of technique is sacrificial writing in functional tissues (SWIFT), which enables the production of small vessels and vascularization through extrusion bioprinting directly inside a functional and vital tissue, which simultaneously acts as a suspension bath [ 63 ].

Moreover, a further highly innovative branch of applications is the magnetic levitation approach, introduced in 2020 by Mironov et al. (also affiliated to the company 3D Bioprinting Solutions [ 148 ]). However, the first experiments with magnetic-based bioprinters showed a limitation that the bioinks have to withstand the pull of Earth’s gravity. Regarding this aspect, space agencies like ESA or NASA are also investigating the idea of using microgravity to improve the 3D printing of soft human tissues, such as blood vessels and muscles. This means using a scaffold-free, nozzle-free and label-free approach (i.e., without magnetic nanoparticles). Enabling in-space bioprinting may not only help improve bioprinting research to face organ shortage on Earth but would also have repercussions in long-term/long-distance human space missions (including Moon and Mars programs). The increased risk of injuries in such distant missions impose the need to develop the ability to print replacement tissues or organs for astronauts in emergency situations. In this context, 3D bioprinting could be considered as a mission enabler for such kinds of projects (i.e., space exploration and planet colonization) [ 149 ].

Worldwide distribution of the most prolific academic institutions

In order to highlight countries and institutions currently involved in 3D bioprinting research, the geographical distribution of affiliations declared in the publications were analyzed. A preliminary analysis was performed on the aggregated data retrieved from SciVal. The United States (USA), China, South Korea, Germany, United Kingdom (UK), and Canada scored as the most relevant countries where research on 3D bioprinting is currently ongoing. Similar results were obtained by ranking the countries depending on the authors’ affiliations (see Fig.  6 a Footnote 3 for further details). As seen in Fig.  6 b, the US has an obvious leading role in terms of absolute performance (number of authors and institutions involved in bioprinting research), which shows a more diffused attention to this topic (with an average of 4.6 top authors in each of the leading institutions). Meanwhile, China has a second leading position but is characterized by a more focused profile, where only a handful of institutions are currently hosting the most prolific authors on 3D bioprinting (with 7.5 authors on average in each of the top institutions).

a Geographic localization of the current affiliation of the 100 most relevant authors (blue), and the most relevant affiliations (green) according to SciVal based on the Scholarly output. The ten most relevant universities are highlighted. The interactive map can be viewed at https://ggle.io/3kuZ . Map data ©2021 Google. b Number of the most prolific universities (retrieved by considering the affiliations in papers) and top authors per country. The number of the most relevant authors, in blue, and the number of the most relevant institutions per country, in green, were retrieved from SciVal on the topic T.8060 (Bioprinting; Printability; Tissue Engineering) . The countries are listed following the SciVal ranking based on the Scholarly output. China, South Korea, and Germany have the highest number of authors per affiliation. The fraction of authors over the number of institutions per country is represented in yellow, and the data are shown on the secondary y axis on the right

In Table 2 , the number in the parentheses after the research institute refers to the relative position of the institution/author in the worldwide ranking obtained by considering the number of published products (called ‘scholarly output’ in SciVal). In particular, products are associated to the institution depending on the affiliation of the authors of each product.

The table lists the top ten affiliations; it can be observed that the University of California at San Diego (1) and Harvard University (2) in the USA, and Nanyang Technological University (3) in Singapore are the three leading institutions in this field (see also Table S2 for a complete list of top affiliations and authors per country). A similar geographical distribution is shown for the most prolific authors (shown in blue in Fig.  6 b).

A more complete analysis of the top-leading laboratories and scientists is presented in Table 3 , with specific attention to the investigated topics. For the most inclusive analysis possible, these authors were selected as the 20 researchers with the highest scholarly output and/or citation count within the topic of 3D bioprinting according to SciVal. Moreover, the network of collaborations between universities defined by considering co-authorships is shown in Fig.  7 , from which it can be inferred that, despite global collaborations, the highest number of publications in collaborations are also geographically clustered. The clusters identified from this graph are also discussed in Table 4 .

Network graph showing collaborations between the most prolific authors; the authors’ names and relative affiliations are presented in color and black, respectively. The size of the node (circle) is directly proportional to the number of publications on 3D bioprinting retrieved from that author, while the color indicates the country of affiliation. The links between the nodes denote the number of collaborations (only collaborations on at least 10 publications are shown); the thickness of a link is proportional to the number of articles produced in collaboration between the two authors. Twelve clusters of collaborations can be identified from this graph, in which 5 are prominent in terms of the number of publications of authors and the number of collaborations

Within the US, three clusters of collaborations can be recognized. The most relevant group in the USA per number of publications can be referred to as the “Harvard cluster ” in which a strong collaboration between PIs affiliated to Harvard can be seen; the PIs involved are Khademhosseini, Ali, whose current first affiliation is Terasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation, and Zhang, Yu Shrike, who is currently affiliated to Harvard Medical School. Considering authors’ multiple affiliations, this cluster also has a connection with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (6). Within this cluster, vascularization and heart [ 75 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 ] are the types of tissue attracting the greatest interest. In the US, another group of collaborations can be identified as the “ Wake Forest cluster ”, in which a network of connections can be recognized within the university with the affiliations of Atala, Anthony, Yoo, James, and Lee, Sangjin. Within this cluster, the focus is mainly on process [ 154 ], cartilage [ 155 ] and articulations [ 156 ].

A further research facility worth mentioning is the UC San Diego (1), which is the leading university in the world on 3D bioprinting, to which Chen, Shaochen is affiliated. Publications by this university are mainly focused on the optimization of the bioprinting process, particularly inkjet [ 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 ], and the evaluation of printability [ 161 , 162 ]; regarding the type of tissues, the recurrent topic is the creation of tubular structures and vasculature [ 163 ].

Within Asia, China is ranked second in terms of the number of publications (1036 papers), with leading institutions such as Zhejiang University (5), Tsinghua University (8) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (9). Notably, while the USA has mainly academic players, among the 14 top institutions in China, two are government-run and one is a medical institution (see Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Information for further details). Interestingly, most of the collaborations in Asia occur within universities.

Within Zhejiang University (5), a strong collaboration can be noticed between Fu, Jianzhong, He, Yong, and Gao, Qing, with the main focus of publications on vascularization [ 164 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 183 ]. Other universities worth mentioning are Tsinghua University and the Ministry of Education, where Sun, Wei and Li, Xinda are the most prolific authors, respectively. The focus of these collaborations is on topics such as the inkjet process [ 184 , 185 ], biomaterials [ 186 ], with targeted efforts on tumor model preparation [ 187 ], especially regarding glioma [ 188 ] and lung cancer [ 189 ], the use of stem cells [ 190 ], and the formation of vasculature [ 191 ].

South Korea is ranked third in terms of published products (scholarly output from SciVal). The main academic institutions here are Pohang University of Science and Technology (7), Konkuk University (15), and Sungkyunkwan University (14). The Pohang University of Science and Technology (7) can be considered as the center of a relative cluster to which the Korea Polytechnic University also belongs. To the first affiliation, Cho, Dongwoo and Jang, Jinah are active and mainly focused on the liver [ 192 , 193 ], cardiac repair [ 194 , 195 ], cartilage [ 196 ], vascularization [ 197 , 198 ], and cornea [ 111 , 199 ].

Within Asia, further notable institutions are located in Singapore (6), which is globally ranked the sixth in terms of number of publications, with the main participating institutions of Agency for Science, Technology and Research (40), to which Naing, May Win is affiliated, and the Singapore University of Technology and Design, to which Chua, Chee Kai is affiliated. Moreover, the most prolific institution in Russia is the Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, to which Mironov, Vladimir A. is affiliated.

In Europe, Germany (4) and the UK (5) are the two leading countries in terms of publications, number of top authors and top institutions. However, the most productive institution on bioprinting in Europe is Utrecht University in the Netherlands (10). Four clusters of collaborations can be identified within Europe, one being the “ Utrecht University cluster ”, which primarily links Malda, Jos and Levato, Riccardo from Utrecht University (10), and Groll, Jürgen from University of Würzburg in Germany (4), with a main focus on the general aspects of 3D bioprinting [ 14 , 31 , 200 , 201 , 202 ]. Two additional clusters of collaborations can be identified in Germany within the Technische Universität Dresden with researchers Lode, Anja and Ahlfeld, Tilman, and Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg to which Boccaccini, Aldo R. and Detsch, Rainer are affiliated. In addition, a cluster of collaboration can be identified in Poland with a collaboration between the Warsaw University of Technology (Święszkowski, Wojciech) and the Polish Academy of Sciences (Costantini, Marco).

Finally, it is worth noting that some leading universities are also located in Oceania; the University of Wollongong in Australia, to which Wallace, Gordon G. and Yue, Zhilian are affiliated, and the University of Otago in New Zealand, to which Woodfield, T. B.F. and Lim, K. S. are affiliated.

Market and patent landscape

In recent years, interest in 3D bioprinting has been gathering momentum not only in academia, but also in the industry. Between 2014 and 2015, numerous 3D bioprinting companies have entered the market, and new start-ups, spin-offs and subsidiaries continue to emerge. Bioprinting could become a new standard for the biofabrication of tissues in the field of regenerative medicine; many bioprinter manufacturers have started to commercialize their proposals and services in research or other professional fields. Most of these companies sell materials (bioinks and cells), bioprinters and consulting services.

According to the latest market research by Mordor Intelligence [ 260 ], the global bioprinting industry was valued at USD 586.13 million in 2019 and is expected to reach USD 1,949.94 million by 2025, which is equivalent to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.91% for the period of 2020–2025 [ 261 ]. These values were confirmed by another report, in which the value of 3D bioprinting market was projected to reach USD 1,647.4 million by 2024 at a CAGR of 20.4% for 2019–2024.

The growth of the 3D bioprinting industry, which is mainly driven by technological improvements on biomaterials and 3D bioprinters, has pushed business players to develop and enhance their existing manufacturing and distribution capabilities.

To review and analyze the companies and start-ups currently on the market, we used commercial magazines, newsletters and specialized blogs to retrieve 70 legally claimed bioprinting companies (latest update in July 2020). The analysis excluded 3D printing or biotechnology companies which announced their entrance into the market with no actual 3D bioprinting-related commercial products or services offered. The list of these companies, together with the available basic information regarding their business and their bioprinter models are reported in Table S3.

Based on the analysis, the business models of such companies could be classified as follows: (a) those selling commercial bioprinters and/or bioinks (63% of the whole market), (b) those providing bioprinting services (such as CAD modelling, specific tissue or cell culture constructs, scaffolds, grafts, or only consulting) with their own proprietary technology or commercially unavailable bioprinters (37% of the industry) and/or starting custom tissue partnership with clients (usually cosmetics or pharmaceutics industries) that have specific requests, as well as granting technology access partnerships (Table 5 ).

Around 80% of the market is composed of established companies, while 20% are start-ups with strong economic growth, mainly stemming from university spin-offs.

Table 6 reports the bioprinter market composition classified by technique, based only on the available information from manufacturer’s websites. Once again, it is possible to see that extrusion-based models are the most widespread ones, as their popularity is guaranteed by the lower cost and ease of use. Inkjet-based bioprinters consist the second most common technology. Nowadays, the inkjet technology is included in most of the extrusion-based bioprinters commercially available as an additional printing head. Despite the fact that stereolithography was the first technology in AM, stereolithography-based bioprinters are a new addition to the bioprinting industry, some of which only appeared at the time of writing of this paper or have yet to be announced. Laser-assisted bioprinters are among the most expensive bioprinters, which are usually part of more sophisticated systems. These are among devices capable of reaching the highest resolutions on the market. Only two-photon stereolithography has even better resolution, but it is not always categorized as a pure bioprinter, as this system is mainly useful for printing scaffolds for cells to attach to rather than printing cells and using bioink at the same time.

Based on the previous analysis, the industry is obviously growing at a fast rate not only in terms of quantity, but also in terms of diversification of the technologies developed and offered. Even though there are some polarizing countries, the companies that develop and commercialize bioprinting technologies are relatively dispersed across nearly all continents (Fig.  8 a).

a Worldwide distribution of 3D bioprinting companies. The interactive map can be viewed at https://ggle.io/3kuZ . Map data ©2021 Google. b 3D bioprinting market composition by continent

Mapping the companies making up this industry is essential to find potential technology hubs.

Considering single countries, the retrieved data suggests that USA remains the most significant player with 39% of all companies, exceeding all the other countries by one order of magnitude, whose percentages vary between 7 and 1%. In terms of continents, apart from the 40% share of North America, consisting basically of USA and Canada, Europe harbors 36% of all companies, with countries like Germany, UK and France representing nearly half of all European companies. The continents that follow are Asia (14%), Latin America (8%) and Oceania (1%) (Fig.  8 b).

As far as we are concerned, there is a multitude of university start-ups, especially in China and in Latin America, that prefer to use their own custom-designed bioprinting technologies.

Emerging technological trends

The fact that several 3D bioprinting companies across the globe currently manufacture commercially available 3D bioprinters is a clear indication that the field of AM and the bioengineering industry are evolving at a rapid pace. Along with the number of companies, the abundance of technological innovations associated with bioprinters and bioinks is also growing rapidly. In fact, the main leading bioprinting companies are trying to break into the market with increasingly peculiar technologies.

Most of the companies try to produce all-in-one extrusion-based bioprinting platforms with support for multi-materials (viscous pastes, gels and hydrogels, ABS/PLA and other filaments or polymer powders, liquids, ceramics and foods), multi-tools (laser system for ultra-high-precision cutting and engraving, CNC milling machine, photo-crosslinking UV LED, microscope, HD cameras for monitoring, autocalibration tools, 3D electronics printer, built-in incubator) and custom-made software (e.g. AI powered automatic organ and tissue segmentation software), often available in different versions according to customer requirements [ 153 , 220 , 244 , 245 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 ].

This panorama also includes firms that invest their resources in developing more refined solutions that aim to solve specific problems. A possible starting trend is to develop methods capable of using tissue spheroids and managing them, for example, through magnetic bioprinting such as the Organ.Aut, a magnetic bioprinter from the Russian company 3D Bioprinting Solutions [ 266 ], also delivered to the ISS on board the Soyuz MS-11 spacecraft. Furthermore, the Japanese company Cyfuse Biomedical [ 267 ] developed a platform that allows to create scaffold-free tissues using the Kenzan bioprinting method to manipulate spheroids. In this method, the production of 3D constructs is achieved by placing cellular spheroids in a temporary array of needles through a cell-dispensing robotic mechanism. On the other hand, there are companies, such as the Germany-based Cellbricks, that prefer to produce complex 3D-printed cell culture structures with a proprietary non-commercial stereolithography-based bioprinting platform [ 268 ].

Moreover, some enterprises try to propose bioprinters with more degrees of freedom to increase system flexibility and the range of printable features, like the American company Advanced Solutions [ 269 ], which patented a six-axis robotic extrusion-based bioprinter arm capable of loading up to ten independent biomaterials during a single print run. Other companies decided to focus on unusual features of their 3D bioprinters, such as the Rollovesselar™ module of the Chinese company Revotek for printing scaffold-free 3D cylindrical structures with a proprietary bio-ink to create vessels. This company claimed to have successfully replaced a short segment of the abdominal artery in 30 rhesus monkeys [ 270 ].

The bioprinting industry is not only driven by extrusion-based platforms. Other technologies to achieve the single cell deposition accuracy are under development, such as the Image Based Single Cell Isolation (IBSCI) developed by the French company Cellenion [ 271 ], which is a high-resolution-based technology consisting of automated image acquisition, processing and advanced algorithms to automatically isolate single cells from a cell suspension. Another French company, Poietis [ 272 ] focuses on laser-assisted bioprinting combined with extrusion-based and inkjet technologies supported via a proprietary PIA™ software to reconstitute the 3D representation of an entire tissue, layer after layer. Yet other companies, such as the Canada-based Aspect Biosystems, attempt to achieve improved accuracy in the development of microfluidic platforms equipped with an on-printhead crosslinking system that is able to print bioinks with a coaxial shell.

Some new business entities aim to increase their market share by widening the offer, producing affordable systems and collaborating with other entities. This is the case of CELLINK [ 273 ] that provides a wide range of solutions, both in terms of affordable bioprinters (extrusion-based and DLP-based) and various specific bioinks. In connection with Prellis Biologics, they have just released one of the first systems using two-photons stereolithography to the market, named the Holograph X™, with a special solution to increase the 3D printing speed by using a parallel set of photons, i.e., a multiphoton technology, in order to simultaneously cure millions of points in the bioink, and in turn achieve bioprinting speeds of up to 250,000 voxels per second.

Pioneering bioprinting companies like Organovo [ 274 ] instead prefer to provide services or products (like liver and kidney tissue models histologically and functionally similar to the native ones [ 241 , 275 ]) along with their proprietary technology.

It is also worth mentioning BIOLIFE4D, an upcoming biotech firm founded in 2015, with headquarters in Illinois (USA). The company is dedicated to produce a patient-specific, fully functioning heart through 3D bioprinting and with a patient’s own cells. In 2018, BIOLIFE4D successfully constructed a 3D-bioprinted vascularized and contractile cardiac patch made of iPSC. In 2019, they claimed that their next milestone would be to produce a human mini-heart, which would constitute the 3D-bioprinted mini version of a full-sized heart [ 276 ].

Evolution of patent trends

The industrial interest toward 3D bioprinting can be quantified in terms of number of deposited patents, which reflects the propensity of a company to protect its ideas and solutions. In this work, the Espacenet website [ 277 ] was used to identify the patents submitted in this field.

A new version of the global query matching the syntax and other specifications of this different database was made. A patent search was conducted in July 2020, and a total of 309 patent abstracts were found since the year of 2000. The abstracts of all patent records were carefully reviewed and grouped into the following categories: “bioprinting method”, “bioink”, “scaffold”, “bioprinter technology”, and “marginal involvement of 3D printing”.

At first glance, it is apparent that the number of patents published shows exponential growth, just as the number of scientific publications. Two-thirds of all patents found were published in the last 3 years (Fig.  9 a). This further confirms the growing number of companies and researchers entering this market.

a 3D bioprinting patent publication by year; b 3D bioprinting patent landscape composition per continent

Despite the fact that, as the previous analysis has highlighted, nearly all of the main bioprinting-related companies are based in the USA and Europe, more than two-third of the patents originate from Asia (Fig.  9 b). It is important to underline that most of these patents were published recently, which is a good sign that Asian companies are expected to soon break into the market. Among the Asian countries, China is leading the field of 3D bioprinting with 58% of all patents published so far (against 19% of USA), followed by South Korea (14%).

Another interesting aspect concerns the topic of patents (Table 7 ). Nearly half of them are about new bioprinting methods for specific functions (bone, vascular, trachea graft), for describing novel 3D bioprinting techniques, or to patent new bioprinter technologies. One-third is instead relative to biomaterials: novel bioink formulations rather than specific applications for specific bioink.

Intriguingly, patents regarding scaffold production or bioprinter technologies were more common in the early years, while those concerning bioinks or specific applications became more prevalent later. This is probably an indication that current technologies have been somewhat established, and new solutions in this area can more easily concern new material developments for organ- or tissue-specific customization.

Figure  10 demonstrates that over two-thirds of the considered patents came from universities or unaffiliated scientists. It is clear that, in recent years, the number of academic applicants (i.e., universities, hospitals and research centers) is growing much faster than those coming from the industrial sector, whose number stays fairly constant. A more in-depth analysis of the patent origin (Figs. 10 , 11 ) indicates that about 56% of those in the academic field and 61% of those in the industry come from China, which means that research output on bioprinting in this country is still booming. It is thus possible to justify the huge discrepancy between the high number of Chinese patents and the low number of Chinese companies. The next few years will probably see the birth of a growing number of Chinese companies focused on bioprinting.

Distribution of patent applicants by year since 2011: Universities/Hospitals/Research centers, blue; Companies/Corporations, orange; Scientists with no affiliation, grey

Country distribution of patent applicants by year: a Universities/Hospitals/Research centers patent; b Companies/Corporations patent. Top countries: China, blue; USA, orange; South Korea, grey

Conclusions

The field of 3D bioprinting, which represents a novel area within AM technologies, shows a great potential for future expansion. In the last few years, this discipline has received an impressive level of interest in the scientific literature, attracting many innovators and creating new exciting markets. All these signals outline that we are possibly observing the expansion of a long-term research direction. Instead of preparing an additional review paper, the aim of this study was to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of the academic and industry landscape of 3D bioprinting, in order that unfamiliar researchers have a compass to venture into exciting emerging technologies, and experienced academics are provided with an updated snapshot of the current status of this fast-changing field.

In the first part, a scientometric review of the literature was provided, with an analysis of all of the impressive literature (almost 10,000 papers, with most of them published in the last few years) to highlight the globally most relevant applications and key actors in terms of laboratories and research networks.

In the second part, the associated companies and emerging technologies were described to highlight the upcoming innovations and the most relevant players that consider the technology for new market developments.

It was confirmed that both paper and patent publications exhibited exponential growth in this sector, with the USA leading the level of scientific output while China showing an impressive growth in the whole number of patents, which clearly highlights its possible future position as a leading country in the bioprinting industry.

Many open challenges highlighted in this study call for new technological solutions that can be possibly borrowed from traditional AM research. The enhancement of printing resolution and speed, as well as cost reduction are common challenges to be faced in the near future. Remarkably though, bioprinting has certain unique features, such as the requirement of avoiding the mistreatment of cells during printing, and taking multi-material printing as a key asset for future technological developments.

To achieve this aim, multidisciplinary research should combine engineering expertise in AM, biological knowledge on cell growth and differentiation, material science for biomaterial developments, and expertise in biomedicine and pharmaceutics to highlight and solve relevant research questions. With such a multidisciplinary approach, we might see a flourishing area that can have a relevant impact on successful future technologies aimed at the improvement of human wellbeing.

The Scholarly Output measures the number of research outputs [ 278 ].

IF data refer to 2019.

Data from SciVal, map created using Google MyMaps.

Abbreviations

Two-dimensional

Three-dimensional

Four-dimensional

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

Artificial intelligence

• Additive manufacturing

Computer-aided design

Compound annual growth rate

Computerized numerical control

Digital light processing

Drop-on-demand

Extracellular matrix

Gelatin methacryloyl

Human adipose stem cells

High-definition

Image-based single cell isolation

Impact factor

Induced pluripotent stem cell

International space station

Polycaprolactone

Polylactic acid

Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)

United Kingdom

United States

United States Dollar

Ultraviolet light emitting diode

Web of science

Ng WL, Chua CK, Shen YF (2019) Print me an organ! Why we are not there yet. Prog Polym Sci 97:101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.101145

Article   Google Scholar  

Choudhury D, Anand S, Naing MW (2018) The arrival of commercial bioprinters—towards 3D bioprinting revolution! Int J Bioprint 4(2). https://doi.org/10.18063/IJB.v4i2.139

Hölzl K, Lin S, Tytgat L et al (2016) Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication 8(3):032002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/032002

Hospodiuk M, Dey M, Sosnoski D et al (2017) The bioink: a comprehensive review on bioprintable materials. Biotechnol Adv 35(2):217–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.12.006

Murphy SV, Atala A (2014) 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 32(8):773–785. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2958

Li J, Chen M, Fan X et al (2016) Recent advances in bioprinting techniques: approaches, applications and future prospects. J Transl Med 14(1):271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-016-1028-0

Ozbolat IT, Moncal KK, Gudapati H (2017) Evaluation of bioprinter technologies. Addit Manuf 13:179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.10.003

Rodríguez-Salvador M, Rio-Belver RM, Garechana-Anacabe G (2017) Scientometric and patentometric analyses to determine the knowledge landscape in innovative technologies: the case of 3D bioprinting. PLoS ONE 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180375

Agarwala S, Lee JM, Ng WL et al (2018) A novel 3D bioprinted flexible and biocompatible hydrogel bioelectronic platform. Biosens Bioelectron 102:365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2017.11.039

Munoz-Abraham AS, Rodriguez-Davalos MI, Bertacco A et al (2016) 3D printing of organs for transplantation: Where are we and where are we heading? Curr Transpl Rep 3(1):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-016-0089-6

Antoshin AA, Churbanov SN, Minaev NV et al (2019) LIFT-bioprinting, is it worth it? Bioprinting 15(May):e00052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2019.e00052

Jin Y, Ji S, Li X et al (2017) A scientometric review of hotspots and emerging trends in additive manufacturing. J Manuf Technol Manag 28(1):18–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2015-0114

Ramos T, Moroni L (2020) Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine 2019: the role of biofabrication—a year in review. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 26(2):91–106. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2019.0344

Moroni L, Boland T, Burdick JA et al (2018) Biofabrication: a guide to technology and terminology. Trends Biotechnol 36(4):384–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015

Gao G, Kim BS, Jang J et al (2019) Recent strategies in extrusion-based three-dimensional cell printing toward organ biofabrication. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 5(3):1150–1169. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b00691

Panwar A, Tan LP (2016) Current status of bioinks for micro-extrusion-based 3D bioprinting. Molecules 21(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules21060685

Davoodi E, Sarikhani E, Montazerian H et al (2020) Extrusion and microfluidic-based bioprinting to fabricate biomimetic tissues and organs. Adv Mater Technol 5(8). https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.201901044

Boularaoui S, Al Hussein G, Khan KA et al (2020) An overview of extrusion-based bioprinting with a focus on induced shear stress and its effect on cell viability. Bioprinting 20:e00093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00093

Gudapati H, Dey M, Ozbolat I (2016) A comprehensive review on droplet-based bioprinting: past, present and future. Biomaterials 102:20–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.012

Ng WL, Lee JM, Zhou M et al (2020) Vat polymerization-based bioprinting—process, materials, applications and regulatory challenges. Biofabrication 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab6034

Kumar H, Kim K (2020) Stereolithography 3D bioprinting. Methods Mol Biol 2140:93–108

Derakhshanfar S, Mbeleck R, Xu K et al (2018) 3D bioprinting for biomedical devices and tissue engineering: a review of recent trends and advances. Bioact Mater 3(2):144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.11.008

Loai S, Kingston BR, Wang Z et al (2019) Clinical perspectives on 3D bioprinting paradigms for regenerative medicine. Regen Med Front 1(1). https://doi.org/10.20900/rmf20190004

Zhang J, Xiao P (2018) 3D printing of photopolymers. Polym Chem 9(13):1530–1540. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8py00157j

Pawar AA, Saada G, Cooperstein I et al (2016) High-performance 3D printing of hydrogels by water-dispersible photoinitiator nanoparticles. Sci Adv 2(4):e1501381. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501381

Datta P, Barui A, Wu Y et al (2018) Essential steps in bioprinting: from pre- to post-bioprinting. Biotechnol Adv 36(5):1481–1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.06.003

Sun W, Starly B, Daly AC et al (2020) The bioprinting roadmap. Biofabrication 12(2):022002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab5158

Kengla C, Renteria E, Wivell C et al (2017) Clinically relevant bioprinting workflow and imaging process for tissue construct design and validation. 3D Print Addit Manuf 4(4):239–247. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2017.0075

Hunsberger J, Harrysson O, Shirwaiker R et al (2015) Manufacturing road map for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine technologies. Stem Cells Transl Med 4(2):130–135. https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2014-0254

Rezende RA, Selishchev SV, Kasyanov VA et al (2013) An organ biofabrication line: enabling technology for organ printing. Part I: from biocad to biofabricators of spheroids. Biomed Eng 47(3):116–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10527-013-9348-3

Levato R, Jungst T, Scheuring RG et al (2020) From shape to function: The next step in bioprinting. Adv Mater 32(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201906423

Gao G, Huang Y, Schilling AF et al (2018) Organ bioprinting: Are we there yet? Adv Healthc Mater 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201701018

Miao S, Cui H, Nowicki M et al (2018) Stereolithographic 4D bioprinting of multiresponsive architectures for neural engineering. Adv Biosyst 2(9):9. https://doi.org/10.1002/adbi.201800101

An J, Chua CK, Mironov V (2016) A perspective on 4D bioprinting. Int J Bioprint 2(1):3–5. https://doi.org/10.18063/IJB.2016.01.003

Miao S, Zhu W, Castro NJ et al (2016) 4D printing smart biomedical scaffolds with novel soybean oil epoxidized acrylate. Sci Rep 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27226

Lukin I, Musquiz S, Erezuma I et al (2019) Can 4D bioprinting revolutionize drug development? Expert Opin Drug Discov 14(10):953–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2019.1636781

Gao B, Yang Q, Zhao X et al (2016) 4D bioprinting for biomedical applications. Trends Biotechnol 34(9):746–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.03.004

Esworthy TJ, Miao S, Lee SJ et al (2019) Advanced 4D-bioprinting technologies for brain tissue modeling and study. Int J Smart Nano Mater 10(3):177–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475411.2019.1631899

Li YC, Zhang YS, Akpek A et al (2017) 4D bioprinting: the next-generation technology for biofabrication enabled by stimuli-responsive materials. Biofabrication 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/9/1/012001

Yang GH, Yeo M, Koo YW et al (2019) 4D bioprinting: technological advances in biofabrication. Macromol Biosci 19(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.201800441

Castro NJ, Meinert C, Levett P et al (2017) Current developments in multifunctional smart materials for 3D/4D bioprinting. Curr Opin Biomed Eng 2:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2017.04.002

Ozbolat IT, Peng W, Ozbolat V (2016) Application areas of 3D bioprinting. Drug Discov Today 21(8):1257–1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2016.04.006

Vijayavenkataraman S (2016) A perspective on bioprinting ethics. Artif Organs 40(11):1033–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12873

Bulanova EA, Koudan EV, Degosserie J et al (2017) Bioprinting of a functional vascularized mouse thyroid gland construct. Biofabrication 9(3):3. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa7fdd

Zhang K, Fu Q, Yoo J et al (2017) 3D bioprinting of urethra with PCL/PLCL blend and dual autologous cells in fibrin hydrogel: an in vitro evaluation of biomimetic mechanical property and cell growth environment. Acta Biomater 50:154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.008

Kim J, Hope CM, Gantumur N et al (2020) Encapsulation of Human Natural and Induced Regulatory T-Cells in IL-2 and CCL1 Supplemented Alginate-GelMA Hydrogel for 3D Bioprinting. Adv Funct Mater 30(15). https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202000544

Murphy SV, De Coppi P, Atala A (2019) Opportunities and challenges of translational 3D bioprinting. Nat Biomed Eng 4(4):370–380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-019-0471-7

Matai I, Kaur G, Seyedsalehi A et al (2020) Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for tissue/organ regenerative engineering. Biomaterials 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119536

Singh M, Jonnalagadda S (2020) Advances in bioprinting using additive manufacturing. Eur J Pharm Sci 143:105167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2019.105167

Heinrich MA, Liu W, Jimenez A et al (2019) 3D bioprinting: from benches to translational applications. Small 15(23):1–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201805510

Tasnim N, De la Vega L, Anil Kumar S et al (2018) 3D bioprinting stem cell derived tissues. Cell Mol Bioeng 11(4):219–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-018-0530-2

Chameettachal S, Yeleswarapu S, Sasikumar S et al (2019) 3D bioprinting: recent trends and challenges. J Indian Inst Sci 99(3):375–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-019-00113-z

Shahabipour F, Ashammakhi N, Oskuee RK et al (2020) Key components of engineering vascularized 3-dimensional bioprinted bone constructs. Transl Res 216:57–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2019.08.010

Nowicki M, Zhu W, Sarkar K et al (2020) 3D printing multiphasic osteochondral tissue constructs with nano to micro features via PCL based bioink. Bioprinting 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2019.e00066

Dhawan A, Kennedy PM, Rizk EB et al (2019) Three-dimensional bioprinting for bone and cartilage restoration in orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 27(5):E215–E226. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00632

Ashammakhi N, Hasan A, Kaarela O et al (2019) Advancing Frontiers in bone bioprinting. Adv Healthcare Mater 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201801048

Yun BG, Lee SHS-H, Jeon JH et al (2019) Accelerated bone regeneration via three-dimensional cell-printed constructs containing human nasal turbinate-derived stem cells as a clinically applicable therapy. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 5:6171–6185

Datta P, Dhawan A, Yu Y et al (2017) Bioprinting of osteochondral tissues: a perspective on current gaps and future trends. Int J Bioprint 3(2):109–120. https://doi.org/10.18063/IJB.2017.02.007

Yang J, Zhang YS, Yue K (2017) Cell-laden hydrogels for osteochondral and cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 57:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.036

Chimene D, Miller L, Cross LM et al (2020) Nanoengineered osteoinductive bioink for 3D bioprinting bone tissue. ACS Appl Mater Interf 12(14):15976–15988. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b19037

Bendtsen ST, Quinnell SP, Wei M (2017) Development of a novel alginate-polyvinyl alcohol-hydroxyapatite hydrogel for 3D bioprinting bone tissue engineered scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 105(5):1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.36036

Xing F, Xiang Z, Rommens PM et al (2020) 3D bioprinting for vascularized tissue-engineered bone fabrication. Materials 13(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102278

Skylar-Scott MA, Uzel SGM, Nam LL et al (2019) Biomanufacturing of organ-specific tissues with high cellular density and embedded vascular channels. Sci Adv 5(9). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2459

Sarker MD, Naghieh S, Sharma NK et al (2019) Bioprinting of vascularized tissue scaffolds: influence of biopolymer, cells, growth factors, and gene delivery. J Healthc Eng 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9156921

Koduru SV, Leberfinger AN, Pasic D et al (2019) Cellular based strategies for microvascular engineering. Stem Cell Rev Rep 15(2):218–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-019-09877-4

Datta P, Ayan B, Ozbolat IT (2017) Bioprinting for vascular and vascularized tissue biofabrication. Acta Biomater 51:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.035

Mouser VHM, Levato R, Mensinga A et al (2020) Bio-ink development for three-dimensional bioprinting of hetero-cellular cartilage constructs. Connect Tissue Res 61(2):137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/03008207.2018.1553960

Yi HG, Choi YJ, Jung JW et al (2019) Three-dimensional printing of a patient-specific engineered nasal cartilage for augmentative rhinoplasty. J Tissue Eng 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731418824797

Duchi S, Onofrillo C, O’Connell CD et al (2017) Handheld co-axial bioprinting: application to in situ surgical cartilage repair. Sci Rep 7(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05699-x

Francis SL, Di Bella C, Wallace GG et al (2018) Cartilage tissue engineering using stem cells and bioprinting technology—barriers to clinical translation. Front Surg 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2018.00070

Di Bella C, Duchi S, O’Connell CD et al (2018) In situ handheld three-dimensional bioprinting for cartilage regeneration. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 12(3):611–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2476

O’Connell CD, Di Bella C, Thompson F et al (2016) Development of the Biopen: a handheld device for surgical printing of adipose stem cells at a chondral wound site. Biofabrication 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/015019

Wang Z, Lee SJ, Cheng HJ et al (2018) 3D bioprinted functional and contractile cardiac tissue constructs. Acta Biomater 70:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.02.007

Cui H, Miao S, Esworthy T et al (2018) 3D bioprinting for cardiovascular regeneration and pharmacology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 132:252–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.07.014

Zhang YS, Arneri A, Bersini S et al (2016) Bioprinting 3D microfibrous scaffolds for engineering endothelialized myocardium and heart-on-a-chip. Biomaterials 110:45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.09.003

Duan B (2017) State-of-the-art review of 3D bioprinting for cardiovascular tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 45(1):195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1607-5

Lee W, Hong Y, Dai G (2019) 3D bioprinting of vascular conduits for pediatric congenital heart repairs. Transl Res 211:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2019.03.007

Mao Q, Wang Y, Li Y et al (2020) Fabrication of liver microtissue with liver decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) bioink by digital light processing (DLP) bioprinting. Mater Sci Eng C 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2020.110625

Lee H, Chae S, Kim JJY et al (2019) Cell-printed 3D liver-on-a-chip possessing a liver microenvironment and biliary system. Biofabrication 11(2):2. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aaf9fa

Schneeberger K, Spee B, Costa P et al (2017) Converging biofabrication and organoid technologies: The next frontier in hepatic and intestinal tissue engineering? Biofabrication 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa6121

Lee SJ, Esworthy T, Stake S et al (2018) Advances in 3D bioprinting for neural tissue engineering. Adv Biosyst 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/adbi.201700213

Knowlton S, Cho Y, Li XJ et al (2016) Utilizing stem cells for three-dimensional neural tissue engineering. Biomater Sci 4(5):768–784. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5bm00324e

Hsieh FY, Lin HH, Hui Hsu S (2015) 3D bioprinting of neural stem cell-laden thermoresponsive biodegradable polyurethane hydrogel and potential in central nervous system repair. Biomaterials 71:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.028

Yan WC, Davoodi P, Vijayavenkataraman S et al (2018) 3D bioprinting of skin tissue: from pre-processing to final product evaluation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.07.016

Vijayavenkataraman S, Lu WF, Fuh JYH (2016) 3D bioprinting of skin: a state-of-the-art review on modelling, materials, and processes. Biofabrication 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/032001

Seol YJ, Lee H, Copus JS et al (2018) 3D bioprinted biomask for facial skin reconstruction. Bioprinting 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2018.e00028

Ng WL, Wang S, Yeong WY et al (2016) Skin bioprinting: Impending reality or fantasy? Trends Biotechnol 34(9):689–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.04.006

Kim WJ, Lee H, Lee JU et al (2020) Efficient myotube formation in 3D bioprinted tissue construct by biochemical and topographical cues. Biomaterials 230:119632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119632

Laternser S, Keller H, Leupin O et al (2018) A novel microplate 3D bioprinting platform for the engineering of muscle and tendon tissues. SLAS Technol 23(6):599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/2472630318776594

Arrigoni C, Petta D, Bersini S et al (2019) Engineering complex muscle-tissue interfaces through microfabrication. Biofabrication 11(3):032004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab1e7c

Ostrovidov S, Salehi S, Costantini M et al (2019) 3D bioprinting in skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Small 15(24). https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201805530

Onofrillo C, Duchi S, O’Connell CD et al (2018) Biofabrication of human articular cartilage: a path towards the development of a clinical treatment. Biofabrication 10(4):4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aad8d9

Mouser VHM, Levato R, Bonassar LJ et al (2017) Three-dimensional bioprinting and its potential in the field of articular cartilage regeneration. Cartilage 8(4):327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603516665445

Piluso S, Li Y, Abinzano F et al (2019) Mimicking the articular joint with in vitro models. Trends Biotechnol 37(10):1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.03.003

Groen WM, Diloksumpan P, van Weeren PR et al (2017) From intricate to integrated: biofabrication of articulating joints. J Orthop Res 35(10):2089–2097. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23602

Levato R, Webb WR, Otto IA et al (2017) The bio in the ink: cartilage regeneration with bioprintable hydrogels and articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells. Acta Biomater 61:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.005

O’Connell G, Garcia J, Amir J (2017) 3D bioprinting: new directions in articular cartilage tissue engineering. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 3(11):2657–2668. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00587

Daly AC, Freeman FE, Gonzalez-Fernandez T et al (2017) 3D bioprinting for cartilage and osteochondral tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater 6(22):1700298. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201700298

Antich C, de Vicente J, Jiménez G et al (2020) Bio-inspired hydrogel composed of hyaluronic acid and alginate as a potential bioink for 3D bioprinting of articular cartilage engineering constructs. Acta Biomater 106:114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.01.046

Bedir T, Ulag S, Ustundag CB et al (2020) 3D bioprinting applications in neural tissue engineering for spinal cord injury repair. Mater Sci Eng C 110:110741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2020.110741

Singh NK, Han W, Nam SA et al (2020) Three-dimensional cell-printing of advanced renal tubular tissue analogue. Biomaterials 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119734

Nam H, Mi Choi Y, Jang J (2020) Vascularized lower respiratory-physiology-on-a-chip. Appl Sci 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030900

Park JY, Ryu H, Lee B et al (2019) Development of a functional airway-on-a-chip by 3D cell printing. Biofabrication 11(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aae545

Fishman JM, Wiles K, Lowdell MW et al (2014) Airway tissue engineering: an update. Expert Opin Biol Ther 14(10):1477–1491. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2014.938631

Carter SSD, Costa PF, Vaquette C et al (2017) Additive biomanufacturing: an advanced approach for periodontal tissue regeneration. Ann Biomed Eng 45(1):12–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1687-2

Ke D, Yi H, Est-Witte S et al (2020) Bioprinted trachea constructs with patient-matched design, mechanical and biological properties. Biofabrication 12(1):015022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab5354

Lee JS, Kim BS, Seo D et al (2017) Three-dimensional cell printing of large-volume tissues: application to ear regeneration. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 23(3):136–145. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2016.0362

Hakobyan D, Médina C, Dusserre N et al (2020) Laser-assisted 3D bioprinting of exocrine pancreas spheroid models for cancer initiation study. Biofabrication 12(3):035001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab7cb8

Yue Z, Liu X, Coates PT et al (2016) Advances in printing biomaterials and living cells: Implications for islet cell transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transpl 21(5):467–475. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOT.0000000000000346

Kim J, Kang K, Drogemuller CJ et al (2019) Bioprinting an artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 19(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-019-1166-x

Kim HKH-KH, Park MNM-N, Kim J et al (2019) Characterization of cornea-specific bioink: high transparency, improved in vivo safety. J Tissue Eng 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731418823382

Shi P, Edgar TYS, Yeong WY et al (2017) Hybrid three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting of retina equivalent for ocular research. Int J Bioprint 3(2):138–146. https://doi.org/10.18063/IJB.2017.02.008

Tan YSE, Shi PJ, Choo CJ et al(2018) Tissue engineering of retina and Bruch’s membrane: a review of cells, materials and processes. Br J Ophthalmol 102(9):1182–1187. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311390

Duan B, Hockaday LA, Kang KH et al (2013) 3D Bioprinting of heterogeneous aortic valve conduits with alginate/gelatin hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 101A(5):1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34420

Duchamp M, Liu T, van Genderen AM et al (2019) Sacrificial bioprinting of a mammary ductal carcinoma model. Biotechnol J 14(10):10. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201700703

Wang Y, Shi W, Kuss M et al (2018) 3D bioprinting of breast cancer models for drug resistance study. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 4(12):4401–4411. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b01277

Bahcecioglu G, Basara G, Ellis BW et al (2020) Breast cancer models: engineering the tumor microenvironment. Acta Biomater 106:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.02.006

Roberts S, Peyman S, Speirs V (2019) Current and emerging 3D models to study breast cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol 1152:413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20301-6_22

Cui H, Esworthy T, Zhou X et al (2020) Engineering a novel 3D printed vascularized tissue model for investigating breast cancer metastasis to bone. Adv Healthc Mater 9(15). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201900924

Leonard F, Godin B (2016) 3D in vitro model for breast cancer research using magnetic levitation and bioprinting method. In: Cao J (ed) Breast Cancer. Methods in molecular biology, vol 1406. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3444-7_21

Zhou X, Zhu W, Nowicki M et al (2016) 3D bioprinting a cell-laden bone matrix for breast cancer metastasis study. ACS Appl Mater Interf 8(44):30017–30026. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b10673

Votanopoulos KI, Mazzocchi A, Sivakumar H et al (2019) Appendiceal cancer patient-specific tumor organoid model for predicting chemotherapy efficacy prior to initiation of treatment: a feasibility study. Ann Surg Oncol 26(1):139–147. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-7008-2

Mazzocchi AR, Rajan SAP, Votanopoulos KI et al(2018) In vitro patient-derived 3D mesothelioma tumor organoids facilitate patient-centric therapeutic screening. Sci Rep 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21200-8

van Tienderen GS, Berthel M, Yue Z et al (2018) Advanced fabrication approaches to controlled delivery systems for epilepsy treatment. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 15(9):915–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2018.1517745

Ravnic DJ, Leberfinger AN, Ozbolat IT (2017) Bioprinting and cellular therapies for type 1 diabetes. Trends Biotechnol 35(11):1025–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.006

Votanopoulos KI, Forsythe S, Sivakumar H et al (2020) Model of patient-specific immune-enhanced organoids for immunotherapy screening: feasibility study. Ann Surg Oncol 27(6):1956–1967. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08143-8

Albanna M, Binder KW, Murphy SV et al (2019) In situ bioprinting of autologous skin cells accelerates wound healing of extensive excisional full-thickness wounds. Sci Rep 9(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38366-w

Van Kogelenberg S, Yue Z, Dinoro JN et al (2018) Three-dimensional printing and cell therapy for wound repair. Adv Wound Care 7(5):145–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2017.0752

Mazzocchi A, Votanopoulos K, Skardal A (2018) Personalizing cancer treatments empirically in the laboratory: patient-specific tumor organoids for optimizing precision medicine. Curr Stem Cell Rep 4(2):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-018-0122-z

Nie J, Gao Q, Fu J et al (2020) Grafting of 3D bioprinting to in vitro drug screening: a review. Adv Healthc Mater 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201901773

Mazzocchi A, Soker S, Skardal A (2019) 3D bioprinting for high-throughput screening: drug screening, disease modeling, and precision medicine applications. Appl Phys Rev 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5056188

Satpathy A, Datta P, Wu Y et al (2018) Developments with 3D bioprinting for novel drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 13(12):1115–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2018.1542427

Wu Y, Ravnic DJ, Ozbolat IT (2020) Intraoperative bioprinting: repairing tissues and organs in a surgical setting. Trends Biotechnol 38(6):594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.01.004

Gu Q, Zhu H, Li J et al (2016) Three-dimensional bioprinting speeds up smart regenerative medicine. Natl Sci Rev 3(3):331–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nww037

Zhao H, Yang F, Fu J et al (2017) Printing@Clinic: from medical models to organ implants. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 3(12):3083–3097. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00542

Shafiee A, Atala A (2016) Printing technologies for medical applications. Trends Mol Med 22(3):254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2016.01.003

Martelli N, Serrano C, Van Den Brink H et al (2016) Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 159(6):1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.12.017

Yi HG, Lee H, Cho DW (2017) 3D printing of organs-on-chips. Bioengineering 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering4010010

Gungor-Ozkerim PS, Inci I, Zhang YS et al (2018) Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview. Biomater Sci 6(5):915–946. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7bm00765e

Cui X, Li J, Hartanto Y et al (2020) Advances in extrusion 3D bioprinting: a focus on multicomponent hydrogel-based bioinks. Adv Healthc Mater 9(15). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201901648

Moroni L, Burdick JA, Highley C et al (2018) Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine. Nat Rev Mater 3(5):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-018-0006-y

Prendergast ME, Solorzano RD, Cabrera D (2017) Bioinks for biofabrication: current state and future perspectives. J 3D Print Med 1(1):49–62. https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2016-0002

Skeldon G, Lucendo-Villarin B, Shu W (2018) Three-dimensional bioprinting of stem-cell derived tissues for human regenerative medicine. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 373(1750). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0224

Leberfinger AN, Ravnic DJ, Dhawan A et al (2017) Concise review: bioprinting of stem cells for transplantable tissue fabrication. Stem Cells Transl Med 6(10):1940–1948. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.17-0148

Zhang YS, Pi Q, van Genderen AM (2017) Microfluidic bioprinting for engineering vascularized tissues and organoids. J Vis Exp 126:2017. https://doi.org/10.3791/55957

Corbett DC, Olszewski E, Stevens K (2019) A FRESH take on resolution in 3D bioprinting. Trends Biotechnol 37(11):1153–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.09.003

Mirdamadi E, Tashman JW, Shiwarski DJ et al (2020) FRESH 3D bioprinting a full-size model of the human heart. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 6(11):6453–6459. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c01133

Parfenov VA, Khesuani YD, Petrov SV et al (2020) Magnetic levitational bioassembly of 3D tissue construct in space. Sci Adv 6(29). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba4174

Ghidini T (2018) Regenerative medicine and 3D bioprinting for human space exploration and planet colonisation. J Thorac Dis 10(Suppl 20):S2363–S2375. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.03.19

Jia W, Gungor-Ozkerim PS, Zhang YS et al (2016) Direct 3D bioprinting of perfusable vascular constructs using a blend bioink. Biomaterials 106:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.07.038

Zhang YS, Davoudi F, Walch P et al (2016) Bioprinted thrombosis-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 16(21):4097–4105. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6lc00380j

Rezaei Nejad H, Goli Malekabadi Z, Kazemzadeh Narbat M et al (2016) Laterally confined microfluidic patterning of cells for engineering spatially defined vascularization. Small 12(37):5132–5139. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201601391

Massa S, Sakr MA, Seo J et al (2017) Bioprinted 3D vascularized tissue model for drug toxicity analysis. Biomicrofluidics 11(4):4. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4994708

Skardal A, Devarasetty M, Kang H-WHW et al (2016) Bioprinting cellularized constructs using a tissue-specific hydrogel bioink. J Vis Exp 2016(110):110. https://doi.org/10.3791/53606

Xu T, Binder KW, Albanna MZ et al (2013) Hybrid printing of mechanically and biologically improved constructs for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biofabrication 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/5/1/015001

Merceron TK, Burt M, Seol YJ et al (2015) A 3D bioprinted complex structure for engineering the muscle-tendon unit. Biofabrication 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/3/035003

Xu C, Zhang M, Huang Y et al (2014) Study of droplet formation process during drop-on-demand inkjetting of living cell-laden bioink. Langmuir 30(30):9130–9138. https://doi.org/10.1021/la501430x

Christensen K, Xu C, Chai W et al (2015) Freeform inkjet printing of cellular structures with bifurcations. Biotechnol Bioeng 112(5):1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25501

Xiong R, Christensen K, Xu C et al (2014) Jet-based 3D printing of biological constructs. In: 25th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium—an Additive Manufacturing Conference, pp 1069–1075

Xu C, Zhang Z, Fu J et al (2013) Time-resolved study of droplet formation process during inkjetting of alginate solution. In: 24th International Solid Freedom Fabrication Symposium—an Additive Manufacturing Conference, pp 253–259

Zhang Z, Jin Y, Yin J et al (2018) Evaluation of bioink printability for bioprinting applications. Appl Phys Rev 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5053979

Zhang Z, Xu C, Xiong R et al (2017) Effects of living cells on the bioink printability during laser printing. Biomicrofluidics 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4985652

Xu C, Zhang Z, Christensen K et al (2014) Freeform vertical and horizontal fabrication of alginate-based vascular-like tubular constructs using inkjetting. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME 136(6). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028578

Gao Q, He Y, Zhong Fu J et al (2015) Coaxial nozzle-assisted 3D bioprinting with built-in microchannels for nutrients delivery. Biomaterials 61:203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.031

Gao Q, Liu Z, Lin Z et al (2017) 3D bioprinting of vessel-like structures with multilevel fluidic channels. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 3(3):399–408. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00643

Shao H, Yang X, He Y et al (2015) Bioactive glass-reinforced bioceramic ink writing scaffolds: sintering, microstructure and mechanical behavior. Biofabrication 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/3/035010

Gao Q, Gu H, Zhao P et al (2018) Fabrication of electrospun nanofibrous scaffolds with 3D controllable geometric shapes. Mater Des 157:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.042

Zhao H, Chen Y, Shao L et al (2018) Airflow-assisted 3D bioprinting of human heterogeneous microspheroidal organoids with microfluidic nozzle. Small 14(39):39. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201802630

Shao L, Gao Q, Zhao H et al (2018) Fiber-based mini tissue with morphology-controllable GelMA microfibers. Small 14(44). https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201802187

Gao Q, Niu X, Shao L et al (2019) 3D printing of complex GelMA-based scaffolds with nanoclay. Biofabrication 11(13). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab0cf6

Xie M, Gao Q, Zhao H et al (2019) Electro-assisted bioprinting of low-concentration GelMA microdroplets. Small 15(4):4. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201804216

Shao H, Liu A, Ke X et al (2017) 3D robocasting magnesium-doped wollastonite/TCP bioceramic scaffolds with improved bone regeneration capacity in critical sized calvarial defects. J Mater Chem B 5(16):2941–2951. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7tb00217c

Wang X, Zhang L, Ke X et al (2015) 45S5 Bioglass analogue reinforced akermanite ceramic favorable for additive manufacturing mechanically strong scaffolds. RSC Adv 5(124):102727–102735. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra19272b

Gao Q, He Y, Zhong Fu J et al (2016) Fabrication of shape controllable alginate microparticles based on drop-on-demand jetting. J Sol Gel Sci Technol 77(3):610–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-015-3890-2

Shao L, Gao Q, Xie C et al (2019) Bioprinting of cell-laden microfiber: Can it become a standard product? Adv Healthc Mater 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201900014

Xie M, Gao Q, Qiu J et al (2020) 3D biofabrication of microfiber-laden minispheroids: a facile 3D cell co-culturing system. Biomater Sci 8(1):109–117. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9bm01189g

Shao L, Gao Q, Xie C et al (2020) Sacrificial microgel-laden bioink-enabled 3D bioprinting of mesoscale pore networks. Bio-Design Manuf 3(1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00062-y

Xie M, Yu K, Sun Y et al (2019) Protocols of 3D bioprinting of gelatin methacryloyl hydrogel based bioinks. J Vis Exp 2019(154). https://doi.org/10.3791/60545

Xie C, Gao Q, Wang Pet al (2019) Structure-induced cell growth by 3D printing of heterogeneous scaffolds with ultrafine fibers. Mater Des 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108092

Gao Q, Zhao P, Zhou R et al (2019) Rapid assembling organ prototypes with controllable cell-laden multi-scale sheets. Bio-Des Manuf 2(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-019-00032-z

Gao Q, Xie C, Wang P et al (2020) 3D printed multi-scale scaffolds with ultrafine fibers for providing excellent biocompatibility. Mater Sci Eng C 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.110269

Jin Y, Gao Q, Xie C et al (2020) Fabrication of heterogeneous scaffolds using melt electrospinning writing: design and optimization. Mater Des 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108274

Shao L, Gao Q, Xie C et al (2020) Synchronous 3D bioprinting of large-scale cell-laden constructs with nutrient networks. Adv Healthc Mater 9(15). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201901142

Li X, Liu B, Pei B et al (2020) Inkjet bioprinting of biomaterials. Chem Rev 120(19):10793–10833. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00008

Zhou D, Chen J, Liu B et al (2019) Bioinks for jet-based bioprinting. Bioprinting 16(May):e00060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2019.e00060

Zhang X, Kim GJ, Kang MG et al (2018) Marine biomaterial-Based bioinks for generating 3D printed tissue constructs. Mar Drugs 16(12):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/md16120484

Dai X, Liu L, Ouyang J et al (2017) Coaxial 3D bioprinting of self-assembled multicellular heterogeneous tumor fibers. Sci Rep 7(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01581-y

Wang X, Li X, Ding J et al (2021) 3D bioprinted glioma microenvironment for glioma vascularization. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 109(6):915–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.37082

Wang X, Zhang X, Dai X et al (2018) Tumor-like lung cancer model based on 3D bioprinting. 3 Biotech 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1519-1

Zhou D, Chen L, Ding J et al (2020) A 3D engineered scaffold for hematopoietic progenitor/stem cell co-culture in vitro. Sci Rep 10(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68250-5

Li X, Liu L, Zhang X et al (2018) Research and development of 3D printed vasculature constructs. Biofabrication 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aabd56

Park JY, Jang J, Kang HW (2018) 3D Bioprinting and its application to organ-on-a-chip. Microelectron Eng 200:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2018.08.004

Lee H, Han W, Kim H et al (2017) Development of liver decellularized extracellular matrix bioink for three-dimensional cell printing-based liver tissue engineering. Biomacromol 18(4):1229–1237. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.6b01908

Jang J, Park HJ, Kim SW et al (2017) 3D printed complex tissue construct using stem cell-laden decellularized extracellular matrix bioinks for cardiac repair. Biomaterials 112:264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.10.026

Das S, Kim SW, Choi YJ et al (2019) Decellularized extracellular matrix bioinks and the external stimuli to enhance cardiac tissue development in vitro. Acta Biomater 95:188–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2019.04.026

Kundu J, Shim JH, Jang J et al (2015) An additive manufacturing-based PCL-alginate-chondrocyte bioprinted scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 9(11):1286–1297. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1682

Gao G, Lee JH, Jang J et al (2017) Tissue engineered bio-blood-vessels constructed using a tissue-specific bioink and 3D coaxial cell printing technique: a novel therapy for ischemic disease. Adv Funct Mater 27(33):33. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201700798

Gao G, Park JY, Kim BS et al (2018) Coaxial cell printing of freestanding, perfusable, and functional in vitro vascular models for recapitulation of native vascular endothelium pathophysiology. Adv Healthc Mater 7(23). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201801102

Park J, Lee K-PKP, Kim HKHK et al (2019) Biocompatibility evaluation of bioprinted decellularized collagen sheet implanted in vivo cornea using swept-source optical coherence tomography. J Biophotonics 12(11):11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201900098

Groll J, Boland T, Blunk T et al (2016) Biofabrication: reappraising the definition of an evolving field. Biofabrication 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/013001

Groll J, Burdick JA, Cho DW et al (2019) A definition of bioinks and their distinction from biomaterial inks. Biofabrication 11(1):013001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aaec52

Malda J, Visser J, Melchels FP et al (2013) 25th anniversary article: Engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mater 25(36):5011–5028. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201302042

Nichol JW, Koshy ST, Bae H et al (2010) Cell-laden microengineered gelatin methacrylate hydrogels. Biomaterials 31(21):5536–5544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.03.064

Yue K, Trujillo-de Santiago G, Alvarez MM et al (2015) Synthesis, properties, and biomedical applications of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels. Biomaterials 73:254–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.045

Pati F, Jang J, Ha DH et al (2014) Printing three-dimensional tissue analogues with decellularized extracellular matrix bioink. Nat Commun 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4935

Ozbolat IT, Yu Y (2013) Bioprinting toward organ fabrication: challenges and future trends. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60(3):691–699. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2013.2243912

Ozbolat IT (2015) Bioprinting scale-up tissue and organ constructs for transplantation. Trends Biotechnol 33(7):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.04.005

Yeong WY, Chua CK, Leong KF et al (2007) Comparison of drying methods in the fabrication of collagen scaffold via indirect rapid prototyping. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 82(1):260–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30729

Lee JM, Yeong WY (2016) Design and printing strategies in 3D bioprinting of cell-hydrogels: a review. Adv Healthc Mater 5(22):2856–2865. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201600435

Xu C, Chai W, Huang Y et al (2012) Scaffold-free inkjet printing of three-dimensional zigzag cellular tubes. Biotechnol Bioeng 109(12):3152–3160. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.24591

Riggs BC, Dias AD, Schiele NR et al (2011) Matrix-assisted pulsed laser methods for biofabrication. MRS Bull 36(12):1043–1050. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2011.276

Tan KH, Chua CK, Leong KF et al (2003) Scaffold development using selective laser sintering of polyetheretherketone-hydroxyapatite biocomposite blends. Biomaterials 24(18):3115–3123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00131-5

Suntornnond R, An J, Chua CK (2017) Bioprinting of thermoresponsive hydrogels for next generation tissue engineering: a review. Macromol Mater Eng 302(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.201600266

Izadifar Z, Chang T, Kulyk W et al (2016) Analyzing biological performance of 3D-printed, cell-impregnated hybrid constructs for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 22(3):173–188. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2015.0307

Li MG, Tian XY, Chen XB (2009) A brief review of dispensing-based rapid prototyping techniques in tissue scaffold fabrication: role of modeling on scaffold properties prediction. Biofabrication 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/1/3/032001

He Y, Wu Y, Fu JZ et al (2016) Developments of 3D printing microfluidics and applications in chemistry and biology: a review. Electroanalysis 28(8):1658–1678. https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.201600043

Woodfield TBF, Malda J, De Wijn J et al (2004) Design of porous scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering using a three-dimensional fiber-deposition technique. Biomaterials 25(18):4149–4161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.056

Kang HW, Lee SJ, Ko IK et al (2016) A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol 34(3):312–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3413

Hochleitner G, Jüngst T, Brown TD et al (2015) Additive manufacturing of scaffolds with sub-micron filaments via melt electrospinning writing. Biofabrication 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/7/3/035002

Jang J, Park JY, Gao G et al (2018) Biomaterials-based 3D cell printing for next-generation therapeutics and diagnostics. Biomaterials 156:88–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.11.030

Kim GH, Son JG, Park S et al (2008) Hybrid process for fabricating 3D hierarchical scaffolds combining rapid prototyping and electrospinning. Macromol Rapid Commun 29(19):1577–1581. https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.200800277

Hong N, Yang GH, Lee J et al (2018) 3D bioprinting and its in vivo applications. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 106(1):444–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33826

Mironov V, Visconti RP, Kasyanov V et al (2009) Organ printing: tissue spheroids as building blocks. Biomaterials 30(12):2164–2174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.084

Skardal A, Mack D, Kapetanovic E et al (2012) Bioprinted amniotic fluid-derived stem cells accelerate healing of large skin wounds. Stem Cells Transl Med 1(11):792–802. https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2012-0088

Devarasetty M, Mazzocchi AR, Skardal A (2018) Applications of bioengineered 3D tissue and tumor organoids in drug development and precision medicine: current and future. BioDrugs 32(1):53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0258-x

Cui H, Zhu W, Holmes B et al (2016) Biologically inspired smart release system based on 3D bioprinted perfused scaffold for vascularized tissue regeneration. Adv Sci 3(8). https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201600058

Cui H, Nowicki M, Fisher JP et al (2017) 3D bioprinting for organ regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201601118

Chung JHY, Naficy S, Yue Z et al (2013) Bio-ink properties and printability for extrusion printing living cells. Biomater Sci. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3bm00012e

Ferris CJ, Gilmore KG, Wallace GG et al (2013) Biofabrication: an overview of the approaches used for printing of living cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97(10):4243–4258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4853-6

Colosi C, Shin SR, Manoharan V et al (2016) Microfluidic bioprinting of heterogeneous 3D tissue constructs using low-viscosity bioink. Adv Mater 28(4):677–684a. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201503310

Bertassoni LE, Cecconi M, Manoharan V et al (2014) Hydrogel bioprinted microchannel networks for vascularization of tissue engineering constructs. Lab Chip 14(13):2202–2211. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4lc00030g

Skardal A, Devarasetty M, Kang HW et al (2015) A hydrogel bioink toolkit for mimicking native tissue biochemical and mechanical properties in bioprinted tissue constructs. Acta Biomater 25:24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.07.030

Seol YJ, Kang HW, Lee SJ et al (2014) Bioprinting technology and its applications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46(3):342–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu148

Zhu W, Webster TJ, Zhang LG (2019) 4D printing smart biosystems for nanomedicine. Nanomedicine 14(13):1643–1645. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2019-0134

Shafiee A, Ghadiri E, Ramesh H et al (2019) Physics of bioprinting. Appl Phys Rev 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5087206

Kolesky DB, Truby RL, Gladman AS et al (2014) 3D bioprinting of vascularized, heterogeneous cell-laden tissue constructs. Adv Mater 26(19):3124–3130. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201305506

Highley CB, Rodell CB, Burdick JA (2015) Direct 3D printing of shear-thinning hydrogels into self-healing hydrogels. Adv Mater 27(34):5075–5079. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201501234

Gauvin R, Chen YC, Lee JW et al (2012) Microfabrication of complex porous tissue engineering scaffolds using 3D projection stereolithography. Biomaterials 33(15):3824–3834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.01.048

Zorlutuna P, Annabi N, Camci-Unal G et al (2012) Microfabricated biomaterials for engineering 3D tissues. Adv Mater 24(14):1782–1804. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201104631

Ouyang L, Highley CB, Sun W et al (2017) A generalizable strategy for the 3D bioprinting of hydrogels from nonviscous photo-crosslinkable inks. Adv Mater 29(8). https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201604983

Bhise NS, Manoharan V, Massa S et al (2016) A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids. Biofabrication 8(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/014101

Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A (2015) Seeking the right context for evaluating nanomedicine: from tissue models in petri dishes to microfluidic organs-on-a-chip. Nanomedicine. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm.15.18

Hou X, Zhang YS, De Santiago GT et al (2017) Interplay between materials and microfluidics. Nat Rev Mater. https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2017.16

Miri AK et al (2018) Microfluidics-enabled multimaterial maskless stereolithographic bioprinting. Adv Mater 30(27):27. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201800242

Pi Q, Maharjan S, Yan X et al (2018) Digitally tunable microfluidic bioprinting of multilayered cannular tissues. Adv Mater 30(43):43. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201706913

Ali M, AnilKumar PR, Yoo JJ et al (2019) A photo-crosslinkable kidney ECM-derived bioink accelerates renal tissue formation. Adv Healthc Mater 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201800992

Skardal A, Murphy SV, Crowell K et al (2017) A tunable hydrogel system for long-term release of cell-secreted cytokines and bioprinted in situ wound cell delivery. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 105(7):1986–2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33736

Skardal A, Devarasetty M, Forsythe S et al (2016) A reductionist metastasis-on-a-chip platform for in vitro tumor progression modeling and drug screening. Biotechnol Bioeng 113(9):2020–2032. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25950

Murphy SV, Skardal A, Atala A (2013) Evaluation of hydrogels for bio-printing applications. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 101A(1):272–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34326

Skardal A, Atala A (2015) Biomaterials for integration with 3-D bioprinting. Ann Biomed Eng 43(3):730–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-014-1207-1

Xu T, Olson J, Zhao W et al (2008) Characterization of cell constructs generated with inkjet printing technology using in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME 130(2):210131–210137. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2902857

Li Y et al (2019) High-fidelity and high-efficiency additive manufacturing using tunable pre-curing digital light processing. Addit Manuf 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100889

Kim BS, Kim H, Gao G et al (2017) Decellularized extracellular matrix: a step towards the next generation source for bioink manufacturing. Biofabrication 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa7e98

Jang J, Kim TG, Kim BS et al (2016) Tailoring mechanical properties of decellularized extracellular matrix bioink by vitamin B2-induced photo-crosslinking. Acta Biomater 33:88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.01.013

Yi HG, Jeong YH, Kim Y et al (2019) A bioprinted human-glioblastoma-on-a-chip for the identification of patient-specific responses to chemoradiotherapy. Nat Biomed Eng 3(7):509–519

Castilho M, Feyen D, Flandes-Iparraguirre et al (2017) Melt electrospinning writing of poly-hydroxymethylglycolide-co-ε-caprolactone-based scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater 6(18):18. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201700311

Stichler S, Böck T, Paxton N et al (2017) Double printing of hyaluronic acid/poly(glycidol) hybrid hydrogels with poly(ϵ-caprolactone) for MSC chondrogenesis. Biofabrication 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa8cb7

Castilho M, Hochleitner G, Wilson W et al (2018) Mechanical behavior of a soft hydrogel reinforced with three-dimensional printed microfibre scaffolds. Sci Rep 8(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19502-y

de Ruijter M, Hrynevich A, Haigh JN et al (2018) Out-of-plane 3D-printed microfibers improve the shear properties of hydrogel composites. Small 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201702773

3D bioprinting market by component (3D bioprinters (microextrusion, inkjet, laser), bioink (natural, synthetic, hybrid)), material (hydrogel, living cells), application (skin, drug research), end user (biopharma, academia)—global forecast to 2024

3D bioprinting market—growth, trends and forecasts (2020–2025)

Aether 2020. https://discoveraether.com/

Liu W, Zhang YS, Heinrich MA et al (2017) Rapid continuous multimaterial extrusion bioprinting. Adv Mater 29(3):3. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201604630

Zhu K, Shin SR, van Kempen T et al (2017) Gold nanocomposite bioink for printing 3D cardiac constructs. Adv Funct Mater 27(12):12. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201605352

Liu W, Zhong Z, Hu N et al (2018) Coaxial extrusion bioprinting of 3D microfibrous constructs with cell-favorable gelatin methacryloyl microenvironments. Biofabrication 10(2):2. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa9d44

3D Bioprinting Solutions (2020) https://bioprinting.ru/

Cyfuse Biomedical (2020) https://www.cyfusebio.com/en/

Cellbricks (2020) https://cellbricks.com/

Advanced Solutions (2020) https://www.advancedsolutions.com/

Revotek (2020) http://www.revotekhealth.com/index.aspx

Cellenion (2020) https://www.cellenion.com/

Poietis (2020) https://poietis.com/

CELLINK (2020) https://cellink.com/global/

Organovo (2020) https://organovo.com/

Grundy C, Smith R, Nickel J et al (2011) Utilization of human liver tissues for the evaluation of valproic acid-induced liver injury. 92121

BIOLIFE4D (2020) https://biolife4d.com/

Espacenet. http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html

Colledge L (2017) Snowball metrics recipe book standardised research metrics—by the sector, for the sector. Snowball Metrics

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by the collaboration agreement between the Italian Space Agency and Politecnico di Milano, “Attività di Ricerca e Innovazione” Agreement n. 2018-5-HH.0.

Open access funding provided by Politecnico di Milano within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa, 1, 20156, Milan, Italy

Silvia Santoni, Simone G. Gugliandolo & Bianca M. Colosimo

Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133, Milan, Italy

Silvia Santoni, Simone G. Gugliandolo, Mattia Sponchioni & Davide Moscatelli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SS, SGG, MS, DM and BMC were involved in conceptualization; SS, SGG were involved in data collection, analysis and writing—original draft; MS, DM and BMC contributed to formal analysis, supervision, validation and writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattia Sponchioni .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1615 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Santoni, S., Gugliandolo, S.G., Sponchioni, M. et al. 3D bioprinting: current status and trends—a guide to the literature and industrial practice. Bio-des. Manuf. 5 , 14–42 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-021-00165-0

Download citation

Received : 25 February 2021

Accepted : 19 August 2021

Published : 02 December 2021

Issue Date : January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-021-00165-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• 3D bioprinting
• Biofabrication
• Organ-on-a-chip
• Tissue engineering
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

This 3D printer can figure out how to print with an unknown material

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

While 3D printing has exploded in popularity, many of the plastic materials these printers use to create objects cannot be easily recycled. While new sustainable materials are emerging for use in 3D printing, they remain difficult to adopt because 3D printer settings need to be adjusted for each material, a process generally done by hand.

To print a new material from scratch, one must typically set up to 100 parameters in software that controls how the printer will extrude the material as it fabricates an object. Commonly used materials, like mass-manufactured polymers, have established sets of parameters that were perfected through tedious, trial-and-error processes.

But the properties of renewable and recyclable materials can fluctuate widely based on their composition, so fixed parameter sets are nearly impossible to create. In this case, users must come up with all these parameters by hand.

Researchers tackled this problem by developing a 3D printer that can automatically identify the parameters of an unknown material on its own.

A collaborative team from MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Center for Scientific Research in Greece (Demokritos) modified the extruder, the “heart” of a 3D printer, so it can measure the forces and flow of a material.

These data, gathered through a 20-minute test, are fed into a mathematical function that is used to automatically generate printing parameters. These parameters can be entered into off-the-shelf 3D printing software and used to print with a never-before-seen material. 

The automatically generated parameters can replace about half of the parameters that typically must be tuned by hand. In a series of test prints with unique materials, including several renewable materials, the researchers showed that their method can consistently produce viable parameters.

This research could help to reduce the environmental impact of additive manufacturing, which typically relies on nonrecyclable polymers and resins derived from fossil fuels.

“In this paper, we demonstrate a method that can take all these interesting materials that are bio-based and made from various sustainable sources and show that the printer can figure out by itself how to print those materials. The goal is to make 3D printing more sustainable,” says senior author Neil Gershenfeld, who leads CBA.

His co-authors include first author Jake Read a graduate student in the CBA who led the printer development; Jonathan Seppala, a chemical engineer in the Materials Science and Engineering Division of NIST; Filippos Tourlomousis, a former CBA postdoc who now heads the Autonomous Science Lab at Demokritos; James Warren, who leads the Materials Genome Program at NIST; and Nicole Bakker, a research assistant at CBA. The research is published in the journal Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation .

Shifting material properties

In fused filament fabrication (FFF), which is often used in rapid prototyping, molten polymers are extruded through a heated nozzle layer-by-layer to build a part. Software, called a slicer, provides instructions to the machine, but the slicer must be configured to work with a particular material.

Using renewable or recycled materials in an FFF 3D printer is especially challenging because there are so many variables that affect the material properties.

For instance, a bio-based polymer or resin might be composed of different mixes of plants based on the season. The properties of recycled materials also vary widely based on what is available to recycle.

“In ‘Back to the Future,’ there is a ‘Mr. Fusion’ blender where Doc just throws whatever he has into the blender and it works [as a power source for the DeLorean time machine]. That is the same idea here. Ideally, with plastics recycling, you could just shred what you have and print with it. But, with current feed-forward systems, that won’t work because if your filament changes significantly during the print, everything would break,” Read says.

To overcome these challenges, the researchers developed a 3D printer and workflow to automatically identify viable process parameters for any unknown material.

They started with a 3D printer their lab had previously developed that can capture data and provide feedback as it operates. The researchers added three instruments to the machine’s extruder that take measurements which are used to calculate parameters.

A load cell measures the pressure being exerted on the printing filament, while a feed rate sensor measures the thickness of the filament and the actual rate at which it is being fed through the printer.

“This fusion of measurement, modeling, and manufacturing is at the heart of the collaboration between NIST and CBA, as we work develop what we’ve termed ‘computational metrology,’” says Warren.

These measurements can be used to calculate the two most important, yet difficult to determine, printing parameters: flow rate and temperature. Nearly half of all print settings in standard software are related to these two parameters. 

Deriving a dataset

Once they had the new instruments in place, the researchers developed a 20-minute test that generates a series of temperature and pressure readings at different flow rates. Essentially, the test involves setting the print nozzle at its hottest temperature, flowing the material through at a fixed rate, and then turning the heater off.

“It was really difficult to figure out how to make that test work. Trying to find the limits of the extruder means that you are going to break the extruder pretty often while you are testing it. The notion of turning the heater off and just passively taking measurements was the ‘aha’ moment,” says Read.

These data are entered into a function that automatically generates real parameters for the material and machine configuration, based on relative temperature and pressure inputs. The user can then enter those parameters into 3D printing software and generate instructions for the printer.

In experiments with six different materials, several of which were bio-based, the method automatically generated viable parameters that consistently led to successful prints of a complex object.

Moving forward, the researchers plan to integrate this process with 3D printing software so parameters don’t need to be entered manually. In addition, they want to enhance their workflow by incorporating a thermodynamic model of the hot end, which is the part of the printer that melts the filament.

This collaboration is now more broadly developing computational metrology, in which the output of a measurement is a predictive model rather than just a parameter. The researchers will be applying this in other areas of advanced manufacturing, as well as in expanding access to metrology.

“By developing a new method for the automatic generation of process parameters for fused filament fabrication, this study opens the door to the use of recycled and bio-based filaments that have variable and unknown behaviors. Importantly, this enhances the potential for digital manufacturing technology to utilize locally sourced sustainable materials,” says Alysia Garmulewicz, an associate professor in the Faculty of Administration and Economics at the University of Santiago in Chile who was not involved with this work.

This research is supported, in part, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Center for Bits and Atoms Consortia.

Share this news article on:

Press mentions, popular science.

MIT researchers have developed a 3D printer  that can use “unrecognizable printing materials in real-time to create more eco-friendly products,” reports Andrew Paul for Popular Science. The engineers “detailed a newly designed mathematical function that allows off-the-shelf 3D-printer’s extruder software to use multiple materials—including bio-based polymers, plant-derived resins, or other recyclables,” explains Paul.

Previous item Next item

Related Links

• Neil Gershenfeld
• Center for Bits and Atoms
• School of Architecture and Planning
• Conference on Open Metrology

Related Topics

• 3-D printing
• Materials science and engineering
• Sustainability
• Additive manufacturing

Related Articles

This 3D printer can watch itself fabricate objects

MIT engineers use kirigami to make ultrastrong, lightweight structures

Using artificial intelligence to control digital manufacturing

More mit news.

A biomedical engineer pivots from human movement to women’s health

Read full story →

MIT tops among single-campus universities in US patents granted

A new way to detect radiation involving cheap ceramics

A crossroads for computing at MIT

Growing our donated organ supply

New AI method captures uncertainty in medical images

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

New 3D-printing method makes printing objects more affordable and eco-friendly

The discovery has the potential to advance the world of additive manufacturing..

University of Florida engineers have developed a method for 3D printing called vapor-induced phase-separation 3D printing, or VIPS-3DP, to create single-material as well as multi-material objects. The discovery has the potential to advance the world of additive manufacturing.

Yong Huang, Ph. D., a professor in UF's department of mechanical and aerospace engineering, said the printing process he and colleagues developed allows manufacturers to create custom-made objects economically and sustainably. The novel approach was reported Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications .

"It is more economical and much simpler than current counterpart technologies," he said. "It's an affordable process for printing advanced materials, including metals."

To understand the process, imagine using special eco-friendly liquids to make the "ink" for a 3D printer. These dissolvable polymer-based liquids can include metal or ceramic particles. When you print with this ink, a non-solvent vapor is released into the printing area. This vapor makes the liquid part of the ink solidify, leaving behind the solid material -- called the vapor-induced phase-separation process.

Huang explained the process allows manufacturers to 3D print multi-material parts with spatially tunable, multi-scale porosity, which means creating structures that have different kinds of substances at different locations and with varied levels of porousness.

The object's porousness refers to it having tiny holes or gaps, and this is created by adjusting printing conditions and/or how much sacrificial material is used during the VIPS-3DP process. This can be useful for manufacturing things like porous medical implants or lightweight aerospace products.

"This is a promising method for creating metallic products that require different levels of porousness," said Marc Sole-Gras, Ph.D., the first author of the paper and a former graduate student in Huang's lab. "A good example of this is in bone tissue engineering. We can print an implant that is appropriately porous to ensure it integrates with the surrounding human cells."

In addition to requiring less investments in infrastructure, the VIPS-3DP process is a greener option to traditional printing methods because it uses sustainable materials and less energy.

The UF-licensed technology has been granted two patents, and its development was supported through funding from federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

• 3-D Printing
• Materials Science
• Nanotechnology
• Engineering and Construction
• Nature of Water
• Civil Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Electron microscope
• Earth science
• Fluid mechanics
• Introduction to quantum mechanics
• Alternative fuel vehicle

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Florida . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Marc Sole-Gras, Bing Ren, Benjamin J. Ryder, Jinqun Ge, Jinge Huang, Wenxuan Chai, Jun Yin, Gerhard E. Fuchs, Guoan Wang, Xiuping Jiang, Yong Huang. Vapor-induced phase-separation-enabled versatile direct ink writing . Nature Communications , 2024; 15 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-47452-9

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Quantum Effects in Electron Waves
• Star Trek's Holodeck Recreated Using ChatGPT
• Cloud Engineering to Mitigate Global Warming
• Detecting Delayed Concussion Recovery
• Genes for Strong Muscles: Healthy Long Life
• Bonobos Less Peaceful Than Previously Thought
• Brightest Gamma-Ray Burst
• Stellar Winds of Three Sun-Like Stars Detected
• Fences Causing Genetic Problems for Mammals
• Ozone Removes Mating Barriers Between Fly ...

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Relativity Space secures $8.7m US Air Force contract to explore real-time flaw detection in large-format metal 3D printing, reports say

by Sam Davies

15 April 2024

Relativity's Stargate 3D printer and a fuel drum additively manufactured in three days.

Relativity Space has been awarded an 8.7 million USD contract by the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to explore real-time flaw detection in additive manufacturing, according to Space News .

Space News reports that the two-year research contract will see Relativity Space use its Stargate 3D printing platform to explore in-situ process monitoring, non-destructive testing processes, advanced robotics, automation and digital enterprise tools.

The AFRL’s Materials and Manufacturing Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio has awarded the contract, with an AFRL physicist telling SpaceNews that the research efforts are being made ‘in response to congressional demand signal.’

In recent years, there has been a push from the Department of Defence to better understand and use additive manufacturing processes, with several research contracts distributed to also improve aspects like testing and defect detection.

Via this effort, the AFRL will work with Relativity to develop a real-time flaw detection system for large-format additive manufacturing. This piece of technology, according to the AFRL, will be able to detect, localise and classify defects during the print process, with the data being aggregated to enable a ‘true digital thread.’

This technology is being developed to allow the AFRL to generate more confidence in parts made with 3D printing techniques. By implementing non-destructive evaluation techniques, the AFRL will be able to examine the structure of components without damaging them. Its real-time nature will also mean the organisation can identify print errors more quickly.

Relativity Space has made a name for itself in the additive manufacturing community through its efforts to develop and launch rockets that have been manufactured with 3D printing. Last year, the company successfully launched its Terran 1 rocket – which is said to be 85% 3D printed by mass – with the launch vehicle surviving Max Q.

Get your  FREE print subscription  to TCT Magazine.

Exhibit at the UK's definitive and most influential 3D printing and additive manufacturing event,  TCT 3Sixty .

Featured Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing Insights

© Rapid News Publications Ltd. A Rapid News Group Company. All Rights Reserved

• Directories

Project Info

3d printed small animal imager, project goals and description:, more information:, primary contacts:, student preparation, qualifications, time commitment (hrs/wk), skills/techniques gained, mentoring plan, preferred student status.

3D-printed holographics can encode data using common plastic -- keys and addresses up to 576 bits, with redundancy

T here is no shortage of ways to store and encode data in the ever-evolving field of data storage — adding to that list on March 6th, researchers published a paper titled " Encoding terahertz holographic bits with a computer-generated 3D-printed phase plate " for open access on Nature.com's Scientific Reports . This story reached us through a Phys.org writeup .

Based on the abstract in the original report, a 2D 576-bit data code can be produced using a diffractive phase-plate element. The data actually encoded in the testing was a 256-bit private Bitcoin wallet key with redundancy, so it's a little unclear whether 256-bit is the real upper-limit or a user could use all 576 bits without redundancy. In any case, that's not a lot of storage— but for the right pieces of digitized information, it may be all you need.

The process works by using a combination of the right FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) on Github (namely libdmtx and pylibdmtx ) and the best 3D printers , one can map and then print holographic data to a regular piece of plastic. In order for the data to be read once mapped to this piece of plastic, the usage of a terahertz wave is required— which is likely the most expensive part of the process.

So if this implementation of HDS (holographic data storage) still involves the use of expensive equipment, what's so impressive? Well, typically, even the simple creation of functioning holographic storage is an incredibly expensive process that requires high-end laser-etching. Following this, the basic storage medium can be created by just about anybody with access to the original paper, Github, a 3D printer, and the computing knowledge to make it all work.

One of the researchers who worked on the piece, Evan Constable of the Institute of Solid State Physics at TU Wien, said "In this way, you can securely store a value of tens of thousands of Euros in an object that only costs a few cents." While there is obviously a greater barrier of entry to even having equipment capable of reading this form of storage, fabrication through 3D printing is about as cheap as storage is ever going to get.

Of course, this tech isn't going to be taking the place of the latest and greatest cutting-edge NVMe SSDs , or anything like that. But it doesn't have to. Being able to store cryptographic keys on a cheap piece of 3D manufactured plastic sounds like something out of science fiction or some pseudoscientific spy thriller— but now, it's becoming a reality.

• Partner with us

Ceramics 3D printing gets red hot at Ceramitec 2024

The leading global trade fair for the advanced ceramics industry set its sights on am as a key growth area.

Ceramitec, the Munich-based largest global trade fair for the advanced ceramics industry, began welcoming ceramic additive manufacturing companies – mostly hardware manufacturers – as exhibitors and presenters about a decade ago, as ceramics additive manufacturing technologies began to have a commercial outlet. Ceramitec 2024 edition represents the culmination of this effort and also the starting point of a bright future. Ceramics AM is hotter than ever, with silicon carbide applications, in particular, leading the next gen of advanced ceramic 3D printing.

Ceramitec showcases additive manufacturing processes, materials, 3D printers, applications and the latest developments by research organizations in the field of ceramics additive manufacturing. At Ceramitec 2024, this took place both in Hall 6, which was largely dedicated to AM companies, and in Hall 5, where some large ceramic material suppliers and traditional ceramic companies showed off their latest work in AM. Visitors were able to see 3D printed ceramic parts, which are revolutionizing industries, in a host of applications. Manufacturers, users, and scientists reported from practice and research on how they conduct ceramic printing for highly complex applications to industrial series production.

Thinking big in SiC

Let’s start our review with some of the most impressive among the latest developments seen at Ceramitec 2024. Many – but by no means all – are related to silicon carbide. What was particularly noticeable about silicon carbide 3D printing was the size of the silicon carbide parts seen at the show and thus the upsurge in material demand. We have described and predicted this trend in great detail in VoxelMatters’ latest Technical Ceramics AM market reports and in all our market research for several years, but seeing it in person come into full actualization was impressive.

With its IntrinSiC business, Schunk is leading the market leader in silicon carbide parts manufacturing . These are mostly silicon-infiltrated silicon carbide (SiSiC) parts made by large format binder jetting – not pure sintered SiC – but the applications are significant both in the semiconductor manufacturing industry and in high-heat-resistant parts for thermal processes. Schunk was among the first large companies to build a silicon carbide binder jetting business, more or less at the same time as competitor SGL. Their success clearly shows the difference that mentality makes, especially in AM. Schunk believed firmly in this venture and invested significantly to build it while SGL never showed much conviction. Now Schunk is reaping the benefits of a hugely profitable new market segment while SGL had to pull out, wasting whatever little investment it made.

To prove that silicon carbide is no fad, many other companies are now targeting this business, which is growing faster than any other AM segment. ExOne (part of Desktop Metal) – which provides the binder jetting systems for most companies making SiSiC parts industrially – also provides services for silicon carbide parts, along with many other materials (including salt).

And it’s not the only binder jetting company to do so.

The Dutch startup Concr3de , working with ceramic AM material and service specialist WZR , has introduced silicon carbide 3D printing along with many other materials (including custom ones like wood and refractory cement). Both ExOne and Concr3de (and voxeljet – which was not present at the show, as the company deals with a delicate transition from a public to a private company) have or are developing large-size capabilities. Schunk confirmed that they are making parts for the semiconductor manufacturing industry that can measure 4 meters in length.

This huge uptick in material demand is driving silicon carbide manufacturers to develop and market powder grades specifically to cater to AM requirements. This includes players that VoxelMatters already identified early on, such as Washington Mills , ESK-SIC , Saint Gobain and a new-entry Chinese company called Sanzer New Materials .

As shown in the last three pictures on the right of the photo gallery above, Saint Gobain and Sanzer are also producing parts. The first has found an ideal market in the production of efficient high-temperature resistant burner components (SPYROCOR, HEATCOR and NOXBUSTER) for large furnace systems , under the Amasic brand . These are some of the biggest final parts seen in all of 3D printing. Sanzer also produces SiSiC parts and said the company’s Business Director Bernard Wu said they “consume up to 500 tons of silicon carbide yearly, using a locally-made binder large jetting system.”

But it doesn’t stop here for silicon carbide. D3-AM and Tritone , two interesting companies that developed advanced high-productivity AM processes, displayed pure SiC parts, sintered to full density, without requiring silicon infiltration. D3-AM, a spinoff of the Durst Group , presented SiC parts made with its advanced Micro-Particle Jetting technology (a type of material jetting). Tritone did the same with its high-productivity DOMINANT system based on the unique MoldJet process (a mix between material deposition and material jetting). There are also other technologies to produce SiC parts, mainly using paste extrusion processes, such as the M.A.T. system from 3DCeram-Tiwari , which now also supports direct pellet feedstock printing or  Nanoe’s Zetamix bound ceramic filament materials, which can be used on most filament extrusion systems.

Ceramic AM leaders target production

Even as SiC binder jetting (and material jetting) is taking off (and catching up fast), the market leaders in technical ceramics remain Lithoz and 3DCeram , the vat photopolymerization (VPP) technology companies that first introduced 3D printing of technical ceramics well over a decade ago. They now have a few more competitors in the hardware business (mainly APAC-based companies) – which is healthy – but none that are as technologically advanced. It is interesting to note that Lithoz and 3DCeram represent the leadership in each of the two primary approaches to stereolithographic ceramic 3D printing using slurries: laser- and DLP-based. Their technology affects how each company targets higher productivity.

At Ceramitec 2024, Lithoz introduced the CeraControl software , driving ceramic additive manufacturing to a new dimension of serial production via the “Ceramic 3D Factory”. The system enables and facilitates the networked use of multiple CeraFab S65 systems. As demonstrated at the Lithoz booth, a 3D Factory with sufficient units installed could produce as many as 13.9 million aerospike nozzles with a 12 mm diameter per year. This would require 100 machines installed but it is far from impossible.

Other configurations with fewer machines and larger parts would still result in hundreds of thousands and millions of complex advanced ceramic parts produced cost-effectively. “The idea is that any number of Lithoz machines can be used, even remotely, to rapidly more produce parts, said Head of Marketing Norbert Gall. “uniting Lithoz technology and contract manufacturers all over the world in one global network for interconnected serial production, via the CeraControl software.”

By using lasers instead of projected light, 3DCeram’s largest systems can have bigger build volumes. This means that fewer machines are needed for serial production compared to Lithoz however, due to the massive quantities of materials involved, every print must be completed, with part quality and repeatability assured. To enable its customers to do this with every print job, 3DCeram introduced the CERIA Set AI-based software at Ceramitec 2024. This AI-enabled app contains all the instructions based on 3DCeram’s twenty years of experience in ceramic 3D printing, for rapid technology transfer to its users.

“As we navigate the complexities of large-scale industrial production, the importance of innovative solutions like CERIA Set cannot be overstated,” said 3DCeram’s Kareen Malsallez. “Our AI not only streamlines manufacturing processes but also significantly enhances efficiency, across the board.” What CERIA Set does is help to streamline the printing preparation process, implement better design rules and prevent errors. Used on production systems such as the C3601 ULTIMATE, C1000 FLEXMATIC, and C101 EASY FAB, this results in fuller build plates that accelerate and improve productivity.

We did mention competition. While some known players in this space like AON and Adamtec (part of Nano Dimension, also going through a traditional phase) were not present at Ceramitec 2024, two other companies emerged showing new DLP and laser-based ceramic AM systems. One is Japan-based SK FINE , which was founded in 2018 as a division of the large machinery maker SHASHIN KAGAKU.

Now ready to enter Western markets, SK FINE proposes three systems: two smaller ones based on SLA (laser VPP) and one larger for production based on DLP. This, the SZ-6000, has a build volume of 660 × 600 × H300 mm and achieved ten times faster exposure time than the laser-based models through the adoption of a DLP multiscan method. The other new hardware company at Ceramitec 2024, South Korea-based 3DControls , presented a smaller DLP system (120 × 68 × 45 mm) the TD6, for smaller high-precision applications in alumina and zirconia.

Making many ceramic parts

We already discussed the variety and quantity of large parts made using silicon carbide. However, the more traditional ceramic AM materials, alumina and zirconia, are also being used for more and larger applications. Ceramitec 2024 saw the participation of various ceramic AM adopters and service providers who showed off their capabilities. In a market segment that has been built from the ground up by pioneers such as WZR (using Lithoz and Concr3de systems), Steinbach (using multiple Lithoz systems), Cerhum (using 3DCeram systems) and Bosch Advanced Ceramics (using both Lithoz and 3DCeram systems but not present as an exhibitor at this edition), a few more companies emerged showing interesting new products and applications that will contribute to expand the ceramic AM market.

Swiss company Ceramaret has been investing significantly to expand its ceramic 3D printing capabilities both using DLP technology and recently introducing material jetting technology (nanoparticle jetting) from XJet. The company showed off several printed parts including a series of stunning intertwined watch bands, directly 3D printed in ceramic. Alumina Systems , a user of both Lithoz and 3DCeram technology, went further, showing a wide variety of semiconductor manufacturing applications. In particular Dr. Steffen Welter showed a highly complex tool, a ring used in the atomic layer deposition (ALD) process for semiconductor manufacturing, where a gas mixes with plasma, in hot and corrosive conditions that only advanced ceramics can withstand over long periods, to “extract” and deposit the atom-thin layers on a wafer.

This process of adoption is now clearly underway.

Saint Gobain’s Zirpro division confirmed they are starting to see more demand for their zirconia materials for additive manufacturing applications while material mixing specialists like German company EIRICH displayed several 3D printed parts made with materials it contributed to produce. Even in the traditional ceramic (clay) segment, giants like Imerys and large specialist companies like Ceramica Collet reported continued demand for their 3D printing-specific pre-mixed clay material products. And Nabertherm, a giant in furnaces for sintering , offers a huge lineup of AM-specific furnaces and chose Ceramitec 2024 to introduce its latest one.

At Ceramitec 2024 there was room for some impressive traditional ceramic 3D printing production capabilities as well. Companies like 3D Minerals and Lehmhuus 3D Ceramics , along with research organizations like Energie Campus Nurberg, showed end-use products made with different types of clay and other traditional ceramic products.

Nanoe also proposes traditional ceramic 3D printing with bound thermoplastic filament extrusion technology. All these initiatives demonstrate that traditional ceramics can be ideal and cost-effective materials for end-use parts, even for larger production runs. Most of the parts we saw were made using either 3D Potterbot systems or robotic deposition hardware.

Others, like German company OECHSLER, also a large provider of 3D printing services in the polymer parts segment, has so far discarded the possibility of introducing ceramic AM capabilities to its existing ceramic part mass production business. The kinds of quantities and the types of parts that these large companies produce are still beyond reach but the time will come to further diversify their offer.

New ceramic AM technologies and research

Besides improving the productivity of existing technologies, another way that the ceramic AM market will open up to new and larger adopters will be through the introduction of new additive technologies that are able to cater to specific industry requirements. German company Exentis is a perfect example. Its production-ready screen printing technology enables cost-effective manufacturing of millions of precise and intricate parts across a wide range of materials, including advanced ceramics. It has limitations, given by the nature of the process that is based on the “screen” shape and thus limits part geometry to some extent. However many ceramic applications will benefit from the screen printing approach.

Another technology that will open up opportunities is material jetting. We saw it earlier when we discussed D3-AM’s silicon nitride 3D printing capabilities and Ceramaret’s use of XJet’s technology for alumina. But it looked like we just started scratching the surface of possibilities as D3-AM’s CEO Stefan Waldner showed us an alumina part with enclosed internal channels, something that cannot be achieved with vat-based ceramic processes.

Also using a type of material jetting, with up to six larger nozzles in a printhead for multiple materials, AMAREA showed several interesting applications including integrated co-sintered electronics. Using a Low-Temperature Co-fired Ceramic with conductive silver at temperatures up to a max of 350°C. “Beyond that,” said CTO Rober Johne, “and up to approx. 1500°C, Silicon Nitride composites with different contents of Molybdenum Disilicide can be used by AMAREA Technology’s Multi Material Jetting-based AM Systems as an insulator+conductor pairing to realize functions such as integrated resistive heaters in a component.”

And the research continues both at an institutional and commercial level. French organization CTTC (the Center for Technology Transfer in Ceramics), and German organization FGK (Forschungsinstitut fur Glas – Keramik) presented numerous material and process innovations. Among the most notable, a complex part made from polymer-derived ceramics by CTTC, “mainly as a fun experiment”, as explained by Managing Director Olivier Durand, while the German organization FGK showed the latest in the project undertaken with Lithoz on co-sintered integrated electronic parts.

Any way you look at it, electronics and ceramics were a hot match at Ceramitec 2024.

This new market study from VoxelMatters provides an in-depth analysis and forecast of the three core segments of the composites additive manufacturing market: hardware, materials and services. The ...

Davide Sher

Related articles.

Cor.Sa 3D installs Dominant System from Tritone Technologies

EOS and AMCM to open new UK AM Centre of Excellence

BLT reports +34% revenue growth to $170M in FY 2023

Alstom signs three-year license extension with 3D Spark

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

I’ve read and accept the privacy policy. *

When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Control your personal Cookie Services here.

• wordpress_test_cookie
• wordpress_logged_in_
• wordpress_sec
• UserMatchHistory
• test_cookie
• GED_PLAYLIST_ACTIVITY

Join our 12,000+ Professional community and get weekly AM industry insights straight to your inbox. Our editor-curated newsletter equips executives, engineers, and end-users with crucial updates, helping you stay ahead.