Advertisement

Commercial 3D Bioprinters

  • Frederico David A. S. Pereira
  • Vladislav Parfenov
  • Yusef D. Khesuani
  • Aleksandr Ovsianikov
  • Vladimir Mironov
Reference work entry
Part of the Reference Series in Biomedical Engineering book series (RSBE)

Abstract

The bioprinters are robotic devices, which enable 3D bioprinting. In this chapter, we provide classification of already existing commercially available 3D bioprinters and outline basic principles of their construction and functionalities. The emerging trends in the design and development of 3D bioprinters, perspectives of creation of new types of commercial 3D bioprinters based on new physical principles, including in situ bioprinters, as well as completely integrated organ biofabrication lines or “human organ factories” will be also discussed.

Keywords

3D Bioprinters Ink-jet bioprinting Extrusion-based bioprinting Laser-based bioprinting In situ bioprinting Organ biofabrication line 

1 Introduction

Bioprinting is a rapidly emerging and very promising biomedical field. Availability of commercial 3D bioprinters is one of the main enabling factors for rapidly spreading the principles of 3D bioprinting among industrial and academic R&D groups. According to our best knowledge, the first commercial 3D bioprinter has been developed in Germany with strong tradition in precision engineering and well-developed rapid prototyping/additive manufacturing industry at Freiburg University at Prof. Ralf Mulhaupt’s group, and it has been successfully commercialized later (https://envisiontec.com). The problem with first generation of commercial 3D bioprinters was that they were extremely expensive. Second generation of bioprinting companies identified the strong demand in the reasonably priced affordable 3D bioprinters and explored this market niche. The number of companies producing commercial 3D bioprinters continues to grow (Table 1). The right choice of commercial available 3D bioprinters requires certain systematization, which includes definition and classification of three bioprinters, description of principles of their work, and functionalities as well as understanding of emerging trends in their design and reminding limitations, challenges, and perspectives which we will address here.
Table 1

List of leading bioprinting companies producing commercial bioprinters (https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/top-10-bioprinters-55699/)

1.

EnvsionTech (Germany) https://envisiontec.com

2.

RegenHu (Switzerland) https://www.regenhu.com

3.

Poetis (France) http://poietis.com

4.

Organovo (USA) http://organovo.com

5.

Sciperio/nScript (USA) http://www.sciperio.com

6.

Cellink (Sweden/USA) https://cellink.com

7.

Allevi (formerly BioBots) (USA) https://biobots.io

8.

TeVido BioDevices (USA) http://tevidobiodevices.com

9.

3Dynamics systems (USA) http://www.bioprintingsystems.com

10.

Aspect BioSystems (Canada) https://www.aspectbiosystems.com

11.

Rokit (South Korea) http://en.3disonprinter.com

12.

3D Bioprinting solutions (Russia) http://www.bioprinting.ru

14.

Cyfuse Biomedics (Japan) https://www.cyfusebio.com/en/

15.

Rikoh (Japan) (https://www.ricoh.com

16.

Regenovo (China) http://regenovo.com/english/

17.

SunP biotech international (China/USA) http://sunpbiotech.com/about-us-2/

After discussion and consultations with several companies producing commercial bioprinters, we decided not to indicate prices of 3D bioprinters because they are subjects of changes based on market demand and constant 3D bioprinters upgrading. Thus, for updated bioprinters pricing information, we direct readers to correspondent companies’ websites

2 Definition of 3D Bioprinters

One possible definition of a 3D bioprinter is an automated device for robotic additive biofabrication of 3D functional tissue and organs based on digital models. This definition implies following criteria for such devices. First, it must be automated and robotic device. In this context, manually controlled biomaterials, cells, or minitissues dispensing and/or cell spraying do not fit to definition. Second, it must be able to produce not just 2D cell patterning but rather 3D tissue and organ constructs. Third, it must enable bioprinting both biomaterials (printable bioinks) and living cells or minitissues. Thus, certain robotic devices, for example, 3D printer based on so-called fused deposition modeling or melt electrospinning, which can print cell-free scaffolds and are not able to print or dispense living cells should not be considered as 3D bioprinters. Finally, bioprinting process is based on using digital models. Manually controlled dispensing, pipetting, or spraying even using hydrogel containing living cells without employment digital model (usually in STL file) does not exactly fit to our definition. Moreover, as it will be shown later, there are new 3D biofabrication methods based on using novel physical principles which do not fit to the above definition. It does not mean that these methods have disadvantages, but merely that the main focus of this chapter is on commercial 3D bioprinters as we have defined them. There are many different types of bioprinting devices, and popular hybridization of technological approaches constantly creates new types of devices, which could be eventually commercialized. For the sake of focus, we limit our scope only to consideration devices, which are already implemented and commercially available or at least under development. There are several textbooks on bioprinting (Lee et al. 2015; Ringeisen et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2015; Atala and Yoo 2015; Chua and Yeong 2015; Ozbolat 2016) as well as excellent reviews (Mironov et al. 2009a; Derby 2012; Murphy and Atala 2014; Mandrycky et al. 2016; Mironov et al. 2008; Mironov et al. 2003; Mironov et al. 2009b; Melchels et al. 2012) where readers will be able to find all necessary information about the most recent developments in this sector. Finally, we also do not review in this chapter related patents which readers could find elsewhere .

3 Anatomy of 3D Bioprinters

Beside obvious diversity of commercially available 3D bioprinters, they also have certain commonly shared general characteristics. It is logical to describe these common characteristics before we will start to characterize specific types of commercial devices. In order to describe main components of typical or conventional 3D bioprinter, we will use anatomy-like approach (Fig. 1). The typical 3D bioprinter includes at least five main structural functional components: (i) X-Y-Z axis robotic positioning system or usually Cartesian-type robot although there are already devices with articulated type of robots; (ii) nozzle or dispenser or extrusion mechanism, usually automated syringes; (iii) operational or controlling device usually, including a PC with according operation software; (iv) collector for placing of bioprinted tissue and organ constructs (the simples option is a standard Petri dish); and (v) finally, for sterility purposes bioprinting devices must either have their own sterile cabinet or at least be placed into sterile cell culture hood or laminar.
Fig. 1

Anatomy of 3D bioprinter (scheme)

The sizes of bioprinting devices are different, but again the limiting factors are functional specifications related to desirable bioprinted tissue or organ construct size (Fig. 2). The shape and size of specific device is also a function of the selected form of robot. The number of nozzles is also dictated by functional specifications. Some commercial 3D bioprinters claim to have as many as 10 nozzles. Number of nozzles could be optimized by using pick and place mechanism or revolver-like mechanism. The evolving standard is a commercial 3D bioprinter with minimum two nozzles: one for printing solid scaffold using fused deposition modeling and another for bioprinting of hydrogel loaded with living cells. However, increasing the number of nozzles is a well-established trend. There are not yet standard software and control systems. Finally, there are no certified commercial bioprinting devices approved for clinical application yet. Moreover, correspondent FDA regulations are practically absent.
Fig. 2

Extrusion-based commercial 3D bioprinters (photo). (a) Envisiontec (Germany). (b) Organovo (USA). (c) CellInk (Sweden/USA). (d) RegenHu (Switzerland). (e) Sciperio/nScript (USA). (f) Rokit (South Korea)

4 Classification of 3D Bioprinters

The classification is a logical part of systematization of any types of knowledge. It is already generally accepted classification of 3D bioprinters on three main groups: (i) ink-jet bioprinters, (ii) extrusion-based bioprinters, and (iii) laser-based bioprinters (Melchels et al. 2012). Some authors and especially industry reports often include an additional group of so-called magnetic bioprinting technology developed and commercialized by USA company n3D Biosciences, USA (http://www.n3dbio.com/products/magnetic-levitation/). However, devices which are working without digital model do not fit our definition of bioprinters.

Although magnetic (Durmus et al. 2015; Tasoglu et al. 2015; Tocchio et al. 2018) and acoustic levitations (Bouyer et al. 2016) as well as dielectrophoresis (Albrecht et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2006) and using electric field have enormous potential for development of new types of 3D bioprinters or more correctly say 3D biofabricators or 3D assemblers, according our best knowledge there is no published evidence for any attempts of commercialization of these very perspective biofabrication technologies yet. The potential advantage of these technologies is using magnetic, acoustic, and electric fields as some sort of temporal and removable support which we (using obvious analogy with scaffold which is usually defined as a temporal and removable or biodegradable support) suggest to call scaffields-based bioassembly.

3D Bioprinting Solutions (Russia) is now developing a first commercial variant of magnetic and acoustic bioprinting devices based on the principles of diamagnetic and acoustic levitational bioassembly. However, for using nontoxic concentration of paramagnetic salts (such as gadolinium slats) which are enabling diamagnetic levitation, it is necessary either to use very expensive supermagnets (30 Tesla) on the Earth or to perform magnetic levitation in the condition of microgravity in Space at The International Space Station, which is also very expensive.

Although they often employ digital models, it would be more logical to call such new evolving types of devices 3D bioassemblers.

5 Ink-Jet 3D Bioprinters

The first ink-jet bioprinter has been developed by Thomas Boland at Clemson University (USA) using modified standard Hewlett-Packard 2D ink-jet printer (Wilson Jr and Boland 2003) and related patent belongs to company Organovo (USA). However, according our best knowledge until now there were no indications of commercialization and developing production of ink-jet 3D bioprinters by this company. An early attempt to develop a multinozzle ink-jet cell printer has also been reported in California, USA, at the famous Xerox Institute, but again they chose not to commercialize technology due to the absence of obvious market at that time. Similarly, Japanese company Cannon tried to develop an ink-jet bioprinters, but decided to focus their attention of using ink-jet technology for 2D protein and cell patterning. The main technological impediment for development of commercial ink-jet technology was transition from 2D to 3D printing. Although world leaders in the development of ink-jet bioprinting technology such as Thomas Boland (USA), Brain Derby (UK), and Makoto Nakamura (Japan) (Boland et al. 2006; Arai et al. 2011; Saunders et al. 2008) made great efforts in the advancing this technology, they were not able to move it to the market with commercial product. However, there are some good news. Thomas Boland recently co-founded a new startup 3D bioprinting company TeVido Biodevices (http://tevidobiodevices.com) in Texas (USA), and it is logical to expect the development of commercial ink-jet bioprinter by this company in the nearest future. Even more interesting and exciting developments are ongoing now in Japan. At recent biofabrication meeting in Austria, representative of printing company Rikoh (Japan) (https://www.ricoh.com) for first time reported publically about the development of a new modified ink-jet 3D bioprinting technology and its potential commercialization. The great advantage of presented technology is that they elegantly solved the problem of transition from 2D to 3D ink-jet bioprinting using as printable biomaterials gelatin microbeads. Cheap commercially available ink-jet 3D bioprinters are highly desirable.

6 Extrusion-Based 3D Bioprinters

The extrusion-based bioprinters are most popular versions of 3D bioprinters. A publication by Robert Klebe from the University of Texas in San Antonio (Texas, USA) about so-called cytoscribing published in 1988 is often mistakenly considered as a first pioneering publication about 3D bioprinting technology (Klebe 1988). Robert Klebe is also a holder of first patent about extrusion-type 3D bioprinter named apparatus for the precise positioning of cells (Klebe 1987). However, the careful reading of his publication indicates, beside the title of his paper, that he used printing of proteins for 2D cell patterning and never actually bioprint living cells or 3D tissues. Moreover, what is most important in the context of this chapter that his cytoscribing technology has never been commercialized.

The adaptation of fused deposition modeling for 3D printing of at first biodegradable tissue engineered scaffold and later hydrogel was the next important step and simultaneously developed by Dietmar Hutmacher’ s group in National University of Singapore (Singapore) (Zein et al. 2002), Anthony Mikos’s group in Rice University in Texas (USA) (Cooke et al. 2003), and Ralf Mulhaupt’s group in University of Freiburg (Germany) (Landers et al. 2002). However, only the German group was able to successfully commercialize their bioplotter technology through German company Envisiontec (https://envisiontec.com). Envisiontec 3D bioplotter became a first commercial 3D bioprinter. Modified fused deposition modeling technology for fabrication of solid biodegradable scaffold was not truly bioprinting technology because cell was seeded on printed scaffold later not by robotic bioprinter but simply manually. Hydrogel-based extrusion type bioprinter could not provide desirable initial high cell density, and material properties of construct were also inferior.

The next main advance developed initially by Jos Malda’s group in Utrecht University (The Netherlands) (Schuurman et al. 2011) and later by Antony Atala’s group in Wake Forest University in NC, USA (Kang et al. 2016), was based on using hybrid approach or combination of fused deposition modeling of solid biodegradable scaffold with simultaneous bioprinting of hydrogel loaded with living cells. This technology has been successfully commercialized and became a standard for the most advanced extrusion-type commercial 3D bioprinters.

The low initial cell density forced some researchers to think about possible alternatives to extrusion bioprinting based on using original concept of organ printing introduced by Vladimir Mironov et al. in 2003, using tissue spheroids as building blocks (Mironov et al. 2009c). According our best knowledge at least several groups and companies tried to develop bioprinting technology based on using tissue spheroid as building blocks. Organovo (USA) which holds the original patent on this technology developed jointly by Gabor Forgacs’s group at University of Missouri (Columbia, USA) and Vladimir Mironov’s group at The Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, USA) failed to develop a reproducible tissue spheroid-based biotechnology because tissue spheroids usually fused before they have a chance to be dispensed. Thus, Gabor Forgacs’s group and Organovo later switched to development of rod-like continuous dispensing (Owens et al. 2013).

The company Cyfuse Biomedical (Japan) (https://www.cyfusebio.com/en/) introduced and successfully commercialized a novel scaffold-free “Kenzan” platform technology based on an array of surgical needles for robotic assembly of tissue spheroids using robotic pick and place device according to predesigned digital model (Yanagi et al. 2017). Finally, at least three groups including Timothy Woodfield group at University of Otago (New Zealand) (Mekhileri et al. 2017), Stefan Zimmermann and Peter Koltay group at University of Freiburg (Germany) (Gutzweiler et al. 2017), and Vladimir Mironov group in the company 3D bioprinting Solutions (Russia) (Bulanova et al. 2017) tried to develop extrusion type 3D bioprinters capable to dispensing one spheroid a time using built-in microfluidic device (Fig. 3). Two latter groups are on their way to commercialization of this advanced type of extrusion 3D bioprinters which in combination with previously already achieved functionalities could become a new industrial standard with three different functionalities: 3D printing of solid biodegradable scaffold, 3D bioprinting of living cells loaded hydrogel, and 3D bioprinting of tissue spheroids.
Fig. 3

Commercial 3D bioprinter Fabion (photo according to 3D Bioprinting Solutions)

7 Laser-Based Bioprinters

Among the most commercially ripe methods is laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT), also referred to as biological laser printing. We refer the readers to the chapter “Laser-Based Cell Printing” of this book for detailed introduction and overview of the current state of the art of this method. One of the main advantages of LIFT is its relatively high bioprinting resolution (down to several picoliters and one cell per drop) and the fact that it is a nozzle-free technology, avoiding shear-forces potentially damaging to cells. The printing resolution of LIFT depends on several factors, which include laser pulse energy, repetition rate, thickness of the bioprintable material layer and its viscosity, the distance between donor and collector substrates, and the substrate wettability. This technology was in fact successfully commercialized by a French company Poetis founded by Fabien Guillemot (http://www.poietis.com). However, Poetis decided do not sell their bioprinters because their business model is based on providing bioprinting service such as bioprinting of human skin to the large cosmetic, chemical, and pharmacological companies (see Chapter “Emerging Business Models Toward Commercialization of Bioprinting Technology” of this book).

In 1999 David Odde from University of Minnesota (USA) introduced a laser-assisted bioprinting method using optical cell strapping (Odde and Renn 1999). This laser-guided direct writing approach was demonstrated to be capable of producing 2D cell patterns. However, the subsequent attempts to adapt it for 3D bioprinting practically failed, and to the best our best knowledge this technology has been never commercialized.

Stereolithography (SLA) was also shown to produce complex 3D constructs form photopolymerizable materials containing living cells (Chan et al. 2010). This photopatterning technique can be adapted to process multiple material types and potentially offers spatial resolution superior to extrusion-based methods. Digital light processing (DLP) is another lithography-based technique, which can be conveniently adapted to live cell patterning (Ma et al. 2016). Despite the fact that SLA and DLP are among of the most advanced technologies very widespread throughout industrial 3D printing market, their use for 3D bioprinting has not been commercialized so far. A combination of optical trapping and stereolithography for cell patterning has also been reported in the literature (Linnenberger et al. 2013).

Multiphoton processing, often referred to as two-photon polymerization (2PP) or multiphoton-excited microfabrication, is a lithography-based technique providing even higher spatial resolution down to subcellular level (Ovsianikov et al. 2012). The group of Paul Campagnola demonstrated already in 2005 that this method can be used for cross-linking of cytoplasmic proteins in live cells (Basu et al. 2005). Interestingly, among the main bottlenecks for developing 2PP towards biofabrication is again its high spatial resolution, resulting in long processing times when it comes to the 3D constructs of tissue-relevant size. The need to substantially increase the throughput of this method for bioprinting necessitates the development of novel biomaterials and highly efficient photoinitiators (Qin et al. 2014). A recent report has demonstrated that macromolecular photoinitiators, designed to exhibit large two-photon absorption cross-sections, can be used for efficient 2PP in the presence of cells (Tromayer et al. 2017). Despite the fact that several companies sell 2PP-based devices, none of them is currently suitable for bioprinting .

8 Organ Biofabrication Line

Several years ago Mironov et al. published a short review (Mironov et al. 2011) arguing that the use of 3D bioprinters alone will not be enough for biofabrication of human organs. The proposed concept of so-called organ biofabrication line (or organ factory) implies that beside the obvious need of employment of 3D bioprinters in organ printing technology the whole organ biofabrication line must be developed, implemented, and commercialized. The ideal organ biofabrication line must be automated and robotized (Fig. 4). It must include devices for all steps of organ biofabrication including: (i) preprocessing using clinical cell sorting, stem cells propagation in special bioreactor, and tissue spheroids biofabrication using robotic biofabricators; (ii) processing or actual printing using 3D bioprinters; and (iii) postprocessing using perfusion bioreactor with nondestructive and noninvasive biomonitoring.
Fig. 4

Organ biofabrication line (scheme)

In 2011 this concept indeed looked a little bit futuristic and even close to domain of science fiction rather than to profit-oriented pragmatic and realistic commercialization. Now it is possible to state that practically all components of this proposed integrated organ biofabrication line are commercially available. Moreover, according to Rokit (South Korea) a similar concept of integrated tissue and organ factory is currently under commercial development. It is safe to predict now that similar approach will be explored by other European and USA companies. It is interesting that in this context there is a room for potentially very interesting and potentially very profitable emerging business model when one intermediate service company will collect and integrate all necessary for 3D tissue and organ biofabrication devices developed by other companies into one integrated and automated organ biofabrication line and will sell it including necessary service as one package at a very good price to all hospitals and clinics interested in well-equipped intrahospital GMP facilities for regenerative medicine, biofabrication, and 3D bioprinting.

9 In Situ Bioprinters and Biofabricators

Surgery of twenty-first century ideally must be minimally invasive, cost-effective, and increasingly biology-based or, at least, biology-inspired. The stunning clinical and commercial success of robotic surgery with using a sophisticated semi-robotic device such as a legendary Da Vinci Surgical Systems (Intuitive Surgery, USA https://www.intuitivesurgical.com) strongly suggests the possibility of combining surgical robotics with 3D bioprinting technologies. There are already several commercial medical devices for in situ biofabrication using simultaneous cells and hydrogel spraying Duplo-jet (Baxter, Austria), Vivostat (Vivostat, Denmark), and Skingun (Renovacare, USA). Specialists from Regenerative Medicine Institute in Pittsburg (USA) have developed CellGun. Australian scientists and engineers are very close to starting commercialization of their device for extrusion hydrogel loaded with living cells so-called BioPen (O'Connell et al. 2016). Duplojet loaded with fibrin hydrogel containing living cells have been used for tissue engineering by German surgeons (Klopsch et al. 2015). However, all these devices even commercially available do not fit to definition of 3D bioprinting because they are basically manually controlled and do not use digital models. The concept of truly in situ 3D bioprinters has been explored initially by Antony Atala’s group in USA (Tarassoli et al. 2017) and by Paulo Bartolo’s group in UK (Pereira et al. 2013). According our best knowledge, these attempts do not yet lead to commercial development of 3D bioprinters. Brazilian scientists at Renato Archer Center for information Technology in Campinas, Brazil, together with first and last authors of this paper developed a conceptual mocked model of 3D bioprinter using Swiss articulated robot. Finally, Russian company 3D Bioprinting Solutions (Moscow, Russia) together with Russian experts in robotics and computer science has developed working model of in situ 3D bioprinter using commercial articulated robots (Kuka, Germany and Fanuc, Japan), USA automated syringe (Fishman, USA), and Russian software and already successfully tested its functionality on phantom oral cavity (Fig. 5). Next logical step is a commercialization of in situ bioprinting technology .
Fig. 5

In situ 3D bioprinter (according to 3D Bioprinting Solutions)

10 Emerging Trends in the Design and Functionalities of Commercial 3D Bioprinters

The fact that there are already several dozens of 3D bioprinting companies around the world already producing commercially available 3D bioprinters is a direct manifestation and objective evidence that we are facing the emerging and rapid development of new very perspective bioengineering industry. Thus, all these conversations about bioprinting as some sort of science fiction and statement that bioprinting technology is still in infancy are in essence nothing more than a subjective opinion which is probably based either on unsufficient knowledge or on limited access to objective information. We hope that this review provides at least some objective documented evidence against this still persisting view. Instead of dealing with such types of baseless and often unprofessional futuristic predictions and similar statements about enormous complexity of human tissues and organs is much more productive actually to work hard on the development of 3D bioprinting technology and, thus, advance this exciting and perspective field.

Moreover, the analysis of the development of commercial 3D bioprinters can also show some emerging important trends in the designing of commercial 3D bioprinters. The first trend strongly indicates on obvious fact that number of commercial 3D bioprinters as well as number companies and countries producing 3D bioprinters continue to grow and that 3D bioprinting technology is already in the process of global commercialization. Thus, we are observing the emergence of new bioprinting and biofabrication industry. The second trend clearly demonstrates that there are different types of 3D bioprinters based on different physical principles of their work. The third recent trend demonstrates that companies started to develop not only expensive but also affordable 3D bioprinters which will enable further spreading of this very popular technology in the academic circles. The hybridization of bioprinting technologies as well as increasing functionalities of commercially available 3D bioprinters are the next evolving trends .

11 Challenges and Future Perspectives

The started commercialization of 3D bioprinting technology does not automatically mean that there are no problems and challenges left. It just indicates that bioprinting technology is already mature enough to initiate potentially profitable commercialization. However, relatively young 3D bioprinting technology still has a lot of problems and limitations. First of all, there are no bioprinted human organs and certified 3D bioprinters approved for clinical use. The bioprinting resolution and speed need further improvement. There are at least several basic questions related to commercial 3D bioprinters which we will face in nearest future.

First such question – Can we use one type of commercial bioprinter for bioprinting of any types of human tissue and organs? The answer is probably no. The second question – Is it enough just 3D bioprinter to print tissue and organ constructs? The answer is also probably no. As we argued in previous sections just development of only 3D bioprinters is not enough and we will need development of integrated ideally automated and robotic organ biofabrication line. The third question – Did we already discover and systematically explore all possible physical principles for 3D bioprinting and biofabrication of human tissue and organs? The answer is again no, at least not yet. Another interesting but still unanswered question – Do we need one bioprinter to print whole entire organ in one step or we need several distributed biofabricators, bioassemblers, and bioprinters which will print at first small living building blocks such a minitissues, tissue modules, organ lobules, and even lobes and then we will need to design some types of bioassemblers which will put these building blocks together? Final question – Do we need to create all human tissue and organs only ex vivo and only then transplant them into human body or we must try to print at least some of human tissue directly in vivo in operation room combining advanced surgical robotics with 3D bioprinting and 3D biofabrication? The answer is we must definitely try to develop in vivo bioprinting.

The sufficient and long term sustainable funding, properly orchestrated multidisciplinary efforts, creation of national centers of excellence in bioprinting and biofabrication as well as transnational and may be even global initiatives are essential for success. The well-funded multidisciplinary efforts as well as competition between emerging 3D bioprinting companies will guarantee that transplantation of bioprinted functional and vascularized 3D human tissues and organs will eventually became a highly desirable clinical reality and will ensure that commercialization of 3D bioprinting technology will be successful. It is safe to predict that second generation of commercial 3D bioprinters will be more advanced and sophisticated and we will face the emerging of profitable bioprinting industry.

References

  1. Albrecht DR, Sah RL, Bhatia SN (2004) Geometric and material determinants of patterning efficiency by dielectrophoresis. Biophys J 87(4):2131–2147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Arai K, Iwanaga S, Toda H, Genci C, Nishiyama Y, Nakamura M (2011) Three-dimensional inkjet biofabrication based on designed images. Biofabrication 3(3):034113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Atala A, Yoo JJ (eds) (2015) Essentials of 3D Biofabrication and translation. Academic Press, Boston. 440 pagesGoogle Scholar
  4. Basu S, Rodionov V, Terasaki M, Campagnola PJ (2005) Multiphoton-excited microfabrication in live cells via rose Bengal cross-linking of cytoplasmic proteins. Opt Lett 30(2):159–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boland T, Xu T, Damon B, Cui X (2006) Application of inkjet printing to tissue engineering. Biotechnol J 1(9):910–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouyer C, Chen P, Güven S, Demirtaş TT, Nieland TJ, Padilla F, Demirci U (2016) A bio-acoustic Levitational (BAL) assembly method for engineering of multilayered, 3D brain-like constructs, using human embryonic stem cell derived neuro-progenitors. Adv Mater 28(1):161–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulanova EA, Koudan EV, Degosserie J, Heymans C, Pereira FD, Parfenov VA, Sun Y, Wang Q, Akhmedova SA, Sviridova IK, Sergeeva NS, Frank GA, Khesuani YD, Pierreux CE, Mironov VA (2017) Bioprinting of a functional vascularized mouse thyroid gland construct. Biofabrication 9(3):034105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan V, Zorlutuna P, Jeong JH, Kong H, Bashir R (2010) Three-dimensional photopatterning of hydrogels using stereolithography for long-term cell encapsulation. Lab Chip 10(16):2062–2070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chua CK, Yeong WY (2015) Bioprinting: principles and applications. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore. 296 pagesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke MN, Fisher JP, Dean D, Rimnac C, Mikos AG (2003) Use of stereolithography to manufacture critical-sized 3D biodegradable scaffolds for bone ingrowth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 64(2):65–69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Derby B (2012) Printing and prototyping of tissues and scaffolds. Science 338(6109):921–926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Durmus NG, Tekin HC, Guven S, Sridhar K, Arslan Yildiz A, Calibasi G, Ghiran I, Davis RW, Steinmetz LM, Demirci U (2015) Magnetic levitation of single cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(28):E3661–E3668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutzweiler L, Kartmann S, Troendle K, Benning L, Finkenzeller G, Zengerle R, Koltay P, Stark GB, Zimmermann S (2017) Large scale production and controlled deposition of single HUVEC spheroids for bioprinting applications. Biofabrication 9(2):025027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kang HW, Lee SJ, Ko IK, Kengla C, Yoo JJ, Atala A (2016) A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol 34(3):312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klebe RJ (1987) Apparatus for the precise positioning of cells. US patent 5,108,926 A, 8 Sept 1987Google Scholar
  16. Klebe RJ (1988) Cytoscribing: a method for micropositioning cells and the construction of two- and three-dimensional synthetic tissues. Exp Cell Res 179(2):362–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klopsch C, Gäbel R, Kaminski A, Mark P, Wang W, Toelk A, Delyagina E, Kleiner G, Koch L, Chichkov B, Mela P, Jockenhoevel S, Ma N, Steinhoff G (2015) Spray- and laser-assisted biomaterial processing for fast and efficient autologous cell-plus-matrix tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 9(12):E177–E190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Landers R, Hübner U, Schmelzeisen R, Mülhaupt R (2002) Rapid prototyping of scaffolds derived from thermoreversible hydrogels and tailored for applications in tissue engineering. Biomaterials 23(23):4437–4447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee J-S, Pati F, Jung JW (2015) Organ printing. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael. 92 pagesGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin RZ, Ho CT, Liu CH, Chang HY (2006) Dielectrophoresis based-cell patterning for tissue engineering. Biotechnol J 1(9):949–957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Linnenberger A, Bodine MI, Fiedler C, Roberts JJ, Skaalure SC, Quinn JP, Bryant SJ, Cole M, McLeod RR (2013) Three dimensional live cell lithography. Opt Express 21(8):10269–10277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma X, Qu X, Zhu W, Li YS, Yuan S, Zhang H, Liu J, Wang P, Lai CS, Zanella F, Feng GS, Sheikh F, Chien S, Chen S (2016) Deterministically patterned biomimetic human iPSC-derived hepatic model via rapid 3D bioprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(8):2206–2211CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Mandrycky C, Wang Z, Kim K, Kim DH (2016) 3D bioprinting for engineering complex tissues. Biotechnol Adv 34(4):422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mekhileri NV, Lim K, Brown GCJ, Mutreja I, Schon BS, Hooper GJ, Woodfield TBF (2018) Automated 3D bioassembly of micro-tissues for biofabrication of hybrid tissue engineered constructs. Biofabrication. 10(2):024103.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aa9ef1. PubMed PMID: 29199637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Melchels FPW, Domingos MAN, Klein TJ, Malda J, Bartolo P, Hutmacher D (2012) Additive manufacturing of tissues and organs. Prog Polym Sci 37(31):1079–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mironov V, Boland T, Trusk T, Forgacs G, Markwald RR (2003) Organ printing: computer-aided jet-based 3D tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol 21(4):157–161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Mironov V, Kasyanov V, Drake C, Markwald RR (2008) Organ printing: promises and challenges. Regen Med 3(1):93–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mironov V, Trusk T, Kasyanov V, Little S, Swaja R, Markwald R (2009a) Biofabrication: a 21st century manufacturing paradigm. Biofabrication 1(2):022001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5082/1/2/022001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mironov V, Visconti RP, Kasyanov V, Forgacs G, Drake CJ, Markwald RR (2009b) Organ printing: tissue spheroids as building blocks. Biomaterials 30(12):2164–2174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Mironov V, Kasyanov V, Markwald RR (2011) Organ printing: from bioprinter to organ biofabrication line. Curr Opin Biotechnol 22(5):667–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy SV, Atala A (2014) 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 32(8):773–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O'Connell CD, Di Bella C, Thompson F, Augustine C, Beirne S, Cornock R, Richards CJ, Chung J, Gambhir S, Yue Z, Bourke J, Zhang B, Taylor A, Quigley A, Kapsa R, Choong P, Wallace GG (2016) Development of the Biopen: a handheld device for surgical printing of adipose stem cells at a chondral wound site. Biofabrication 8(1):015019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Odde DJ, Renn MJ (1999) Laser-guided direct writing for applications in biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol 17(10):385–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ovsianikov A, Mironov V, Stampf J, Liska R (2012) Engineering 3D cell-culture matrices: multiphoton processing technologies for biological and tissue engineering applications. Expert Rev Med Devices 9(6):613–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Owens CM, Marga F, Forgacs G, Biofabrication HCM (2013) Testing of a fully cellular nerve graft. Biofabrication 5(4):045007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Ozbolat IT (2016) 3D Bioprinting: fundamentals, principles and applications. Academic Press, Boston. 356 pagesGoogle Scholar
  37. Pereira RF, Barrias CC, Granja PL, Bartolo PJ (2013) Advanced biofabrication strategies for skin regeneration and repair. Nanomedicine (Lond) 8(4):603–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Qin XH, Aleksandr Ovsianikov A, Stampfl J, Liska R (2014) Additive manufacturing of photosensitive hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. BioNanoMat 15(3-4):49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ringeisen BR, Spargo BJ, Wu PK (eds) (2010) Cell and organ printing. Springer, Dordrecht. 260 pagesGoogle Scholar
  40. Saunders RE, Gough JE, Derby B (2008) Delivery of human fibroblast cells by piezoelectric drop-on-demand inkjet printing. Biomaterials 29(2):193–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Schuurman W, Khristov V, Pot MW, van Weeren PR, Dhert WJ, Malda J (2011) Bioprinting of hybrid tissue constructs with tailorable mechanical properties. Biofabrication 3(2):021001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tarassoli SP, Jessop ZM, Al-Sabah A, Gao N, Whitaker S, Doak S, Whitaker IS (2017) Skin tissue engineering using 3D bioprinting: an evolving research field. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. pii: S1748-6815(17)30505-3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.12.006. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 29306639
  43. Tasoglu S, Yu CH, Liaudanskaya V, Guven S, Migliaresi C, Demirci U (2015) Magnetic Levitational assembly for living material fabrication. Adv Healthc Mater 4(10):1469–1476CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Tocchio A, Durmus NG, Sridhar K, Mani V, Coskun B, El Assal R, Demirci U (2018) Magnetically guided self-assembly and coding of 3D living architectures. Adv Mater 30(4):1705034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tromayer M, Gruber P, Markovic M, Rosspeintner A, Vauthey E, Redl H, Ovsianikov A, Liska RA (2017) Biocompatible macromolecular two-photon initiator based on hyaluronan. Polym Chem 8(2):451–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson WC Jr, Boland T (2003) Cell and organ printing 1: protein and cell printers. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 272(2):491–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Yanagi Y, Nakayama K, Taguchi T, Enosawa S, Tamura T, Yoshimaru K, Matsuura T, Hayashida M, Kohashi K, Oda Y, Yamaza T, Kobayashi E (2017) In vivo and ex vivo methods of growing a liver bud through tissue connection. Sci Rep 7(1):14085CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Zein I, Hutmacher DW, Tan KC, Teoh SH (2002) Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 23(4):1169–1185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang LG, Fisher JP, Leong K (eds) (2015) 3D Bioprinting and nanotechnology in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Academic Press, Boston. 392 pagesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederico David A. S. Pereira
    • 1
  • Vladislav Parfenov
    • 1
  • Yusef D. Khesuani
    • 2
    • 5
  • Aleksandr Ovsianikov
    • 3
  • Vladimir Mironov
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.The Laboratory of Biotechnological Research3D Bioprinting SolutionsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Vivax Bio, LLCNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Materials Science and TechnologyTechnische Universität Wien (TU Wien)ViennaAustria
  4. 4.3D Bioprinting Solutions (3D Bio)The Laboratory of Biotechnological ResearchMoscowRussia
  5. 5.The Laboratory of Biotechnological Research3D Bioprinting SolutionsMoscowRussian Federation
  6. 6.Institute for Regenerative MedicineSechenov Medical UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations