Dos Santos Juliana Amorim, Monteiro Mylene Martins, da Barros Caio C Silva, Di Carvalho Melo Larissa, Coletta Ricardo D, Castilho Rogerio M, Squarize Cristiane H, Guerra Eliete Neves Silva
Laboratory of Oral Histopathology, School of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Brazil.
Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, Epithelial Biology Laboratory, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Wound Repair Regen. 2025 Jul-Aug;33(4):e70056. doi: 10.1111/wrr.70056.
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a promising approach to developing reliable tissue substitutes for translational research. The great interest in creating skin substitutes still faces challenges considering its structural and cellular complexity. Despite significant advancements, the lack of reproducible protocols and different translational barriers limit the clinical applicability of current methods. This review aims to provide guidance for future studies and improve methodological replication on wound repair and regeneration. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria focused on 3D bioprinter constructs with human keratinocytes and fibroblasts for wound healing. Authors screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text documents. Data extraction was conducted and cross-checked by two others using customised table sheets. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, primarily focusing on skin substitutes, with no studies found on oral mucosal models. Geographic distribution was predominantly China (44.4%) and the United States (27.7%), with notable international collaborations. Most studies used extrusion-based bioprinting, with gelatin-based hydrogels as the most frequent components in the bioinks (61.6%). Other common materials included fibrinogen (38.8%) and alginate (33.3%), while some studies incorporated human serum and silk to enhance functionality. Constructed skin substitutes included epidermal layers with keratinocytes and dermal layers with fibroblasts, with some incorporating endothelial and follicle papilla cells for added complexity. Analyses included morphology, cell viability, histology, proliferation, protein and gene expression, and transepidermal electrical resistance. Many studies (61.1%) validated results through animal model implantation, primarily in mice. This review underscores the global interest and collaborative efforts in 3D bioprinting for skin wound healing and regeneration. However, we also emphasise the need for standardised protocols to improve replicability and enhance translational potential for clinical applications. Belike, future studies using computational modelling or machine learning should refine these technologies.
三维(3D)生物打印是一种很有前景的方法,可用于开发可靠的组织替代物以进行转化研究。尽管人们对创建皮肤替代物兴趣浓厚,但鉴于其结构和细胞复杂性,仍面临挑战。尽管取得了重大进展,但缺乏可重复的方案以及不同的转化障碍限制了当前方法的临床适用性。本综述旨在为未来研究提供指导,并提高伤口修复和再生方面方法的可重复性。遵循PRISMA 2020指南,在MEDLINE/PubMed、EMBASE和Web of Science上进行了检索。纳入标准聚焦于含人角质形成细胞和成纤维细胞用于伤口愈合的3D生物打印构建体。作者筛选了标题和摘要,随后是全文文档。进行了数据提取,并由另外两人使用定制表格进行交叉核对。18项研究符合纳入标准,主要聚焦于皮肤替代物,未发现关于口腔黏膜模型的研究。地理分布主要为中国(44.4%)和美国(27.7%),有显著的国际合作。大多数研究使用基于挤出的生物打印,明胶基水凝胶是生物墨水最常见的成分(61.6%)。其他常见材料包括纤维蛋白原(38.8%)和藻酸盐(33.3%),而一些研究加入人血清和丝绸以增强功能。构建的皮肤替代物包括含角质形成细胞的表皮层和含成纤维细胞的真皮层,一些还加入内皮细胞和毛囊乳头细胞以增加复杂性。分析包括形态学、细胞活力、组织学、增殖、蛋白质和基因表达以及经表皮电阻。许多研究(61.1%)通过动物模型植入验证结果,主要是在小鼠中。本综述强调了全球对3D生物打印用于皮肤伤口愈合和再生的兴趣及合作努力。然而,我们也强调需要标准化方案以提高可重复性并增强临床应用的转化潜力。同样,未来使用计算建模或机器学习的研究应完善这些技术。