Year: 2017
Type: review
Abstract: Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community.
Source: Trends in biotechnology
Institutions: Maastricht University, The University of Texas at El Paso, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pisa, University of Manchester, Modern Meadow (United States), University of Missouri, University of Würzburg, The University of Sydney, Utrecht University, University Medical Center Utrecht, Sechenov University, 3D Bioprinting Solutions (Russia), University of Toyama, University of Strathclyde, The University of Tokyo, University of Otago, Tsinghua University, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Wake Forest University
Language: English
Subfield: Biomedical Engineering
Field: Engineering
Domain: Physical Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $7,030
OpenAlex ID: W2767585628