Bioprinting Innovations: A Review of Emerging Techniques for Tissue Regeneration and Wound Healing

Abstract

The biological process of wound healing is complex and dynamic, controlled by inflammation, oxidative stress, and the requirement for coordinated tissue regeneration. Complex and chronic wound treatment is still a major therapeutic challenge that calls for cutting-edge materials and creative fabrication techniques. This study focuses on new bioprinting technologies, including 3D and 4D bioprinting, and how they might be combined with innovative biomaterials to produce synthetic tissue structures and next-generation wound dressings. Among these, pectin and hydrogels have attracted interest because of their inherent antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and biocompatible qualities. The adaptable polysaccharide pectin has shown remarkable promise in 3D-printed hydrogels, films, and scaffolds designed for individualized wound care. Furthermore, Nano clay-reinforced chitosan (CS/HNTs) hydrogels address important issues in the treatment of infected and irregular wounds by providing enhanced mechanical strength, shear-thinning behavior, and hemostatic efficiency. Tissue regeneration is accelerated by the exact spatial organization of cells and bioactive molecules made possible by the combination of smart biomaterials and sophisticated bioprinting. All things considered, these developments demonstrate the revolutionary potential of bioprinting in tissue engineering and regenerative wound care, opening the door for clinically viable, bio functional, and adaptable wound-healing therapies

Keywords

Introduction

3. Biomaterials and Bioprinting Technologies

3.1 Droplet based bioprinting

Droplet-based bioprinting includes technologies like inkjet and micro-valve printing.  The process of creating three-dimensional tissues using inkjet bioprinting (IJP) was first described in 1988. It involved altering commercial inkjet printers to use cell adhesive proteins, swapping out the print ink, and applying cell-laden sheets—three-dimensional biocompatible materials that contain living cells in a gel-like structure. There are three types of inkjet printing: continuous, drop-on-demand, and electrohydrodynamic.¹⁵ Thermal, electrostatic, and electrohydrodynamic methods are used to distribute polymer solutions in predetermined patterns on the build platform for inkjet bioprinting.  While the printed material is being cured by light, UV, chemical enzymatic, or chemical polymerization, the ink is put into the cartridge that is attached to the print head. IJP has been used to print a variety of biomaterials, such as calcium phosphate, fibrin, gelatin, sodium alginate, poly (ethylene glycol), and dimethacrylate.  Commercially available printers can be readily adjusted to provide high speed and good resolution for printed materials, making it an affordable technology.  The use of bio inks with modest cell densities to prevent nozzle clogging and maintain cell viability is the main drawback.¹⁸

 

 

Figure.1: (A) Localized heating is used in thermal-based bioprinting to create vapor bubbles and eject ink droplets. (B) In piezoelectric-based bioprinting, droplets are produced by passing an electric current through a piezoelectric actuator.

3.2. Micro extrusion based bioprinting

Micro extrusion bioprinting controls the dispensed liquid volume and structure shape by depositing the ink using either a solenoid that uses an electrical pulse or a pneumatic device that applies pressured air. While cell viability reaches 80–97%, printed materials are crosslinked using methods similar to those used in inkjet.  Better flexibility, scalability, and clinical translation are all made possible by micro extrusion for bio inks with higher viscosities and cell densities.  Limited printing resolution and decreased cell viability as a result of applied pressure or nozzle blockage are some disadvantages, though. Furthermore, applying a lot of pressure might harm the integrity of the cells and reduce their vitality. This problem is solved by using polymers that exhibit shear-thinning behavior, which enhance printability and cause a viscus hydrogel to regenerate when shear tension is removed.¹⁹

 

 

Figure.2: Testing of the 3D bioprinter with hydrogel.

3.3. Stereolithographic bioprinting

Stereolithography is a well-known technology comprises of various vat-photopolymerization techniques where photopolymerized liquid resins are radiated using a single laser beam, digitally projected UV-light source (DLP) or two-photon polymerization. The components of a standard SLA printer are a resin-filled tank, a perforated platform lowered into the tank, a light source, and a computer that controls the platform and glow source. When the resin cures and the laser scans the platform, a thin coating of the photopolymer is created.  It is possible to print intricate structures with great resolution by repeating the process.  The spot size of the applied laser beam affects resolution.  SLA printers employ a top-down method when light exposures are from the bottom of the build platform, or a bottom-up method with light exposures from the top, as seen in figure.  Cell-free or cell-laden microstructures have been created using a variety of photocurable polymers, including e-caprolactone, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate), and di methacrylate.²⁰

 

 

Figure.3:  Scheme illustrating top-down and bottom-up approaches in stereolithography

3.4 Microfluidic Methods for 3D Bioprinting

A microfluidic chip contains tiny channels embedded in materials like glass, silicon, or PDMS. These channels connect to external inlets and outlets that allow controlled injection and removal of fluids or gases. Microfluidic chips are widely used in lab-on-a-chip (LOC) systems, cell biology research, and protein crystallization. A new fabrication approach uses simple household tools and a standard desktop 3D printer, making microfluidic chip production cheaper and easier compared to traditional expensive methods.²¹ This greatly improves accessibility for research, education, and rapid prototyping of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic devices. 3D printing is increasingly transforming microfluidics by reducing cost and complexity. Several breakthroughs have demonstrated its potential:

• Open-source 3D printed droplet microfluidic control instrument (New York Genome Center) — 200× cheaper than commercial systems.
• 3D-printed microfluidic devices with built-in fluid handling (Singapore University of Technology and Design).
• Droplet-based microfluidic 3D printing method (UC Davis) — useful for soft robotics, tissue engineering, and wearable devices.²²

 

5. Bioprinted Wound Dressings' Clinical Translation: Linking Research and Practice

The use of bioprinting in ordinary clinical practice is still in its infancy, despite its impressive potential for wound healing in lab settings. Only a small number of research have advanced to human use, with the majority of bioprinted wound dressings being assessed in preclinical animal models or in vitro systems until now.²⁹

5.1 Current Research in Clinical and Translational Settings

The requirement for quick and efficient skin regeneration is greater in burn injuries and full-thickness skin wounds, which have been the main focus of early translational efforts. In situ bioprinting, which prints autologous keratinocytes and fibroblasts directly onto wound surfaces, is one of the most noteworthy developments.²⁹ when compared to traditional therapies, preclinical research employing pig wound models showed enhanced collagen structure, decreased scar formation, and quicker wound closure. Strong proof-of-concept for clinical feasibility was shown by these results.³⁰

The feasibility and safety of printing cell-laden structures directly onto human wounds have been further validated by early pilot clinical investigations employing portable or handheld bioprinters. However, small patient numbers, brief follow-up periods, and wound type diversity typically restrict these investigations. Because of this, even while the results are promising, there is still not enough solid clinical data to encourage widespread adoption.³¹

5.2 The difference between in vitro and in vivo success

The disparity between the diverse biological environment of human wounds and controlled laboratory conditions is a significant barrier to clinical translation. High cell vitality, outstanding structural integrity, and potential regeneration indicators are frequently reported in vitro. On the other hand, a variety of factors, including inflammation, infection, decreased blood flow, mechanical stress, and patient-specific disorders including diabetes and vascular disease, affect actual wounds. Furthermore, the chronic and complex character of human wounds cannot be accurately replicated by widely used animal wound models. This disparity restricts the straightforward application of preclinical results and emphasizes the critical necessity for well-planned human clinical studies that more closely resemble actual clinical situations.^{31, 32}

5.3 Regulatory and Ethical Issues

When using bioprinted wound dressings in therapeutic settings, ethical issues are crucial, especially when stem cells or genetically modified cells are involved. Long-term safety, donor permission, and cell sourcing concerns need to be carefully considered. Although therapeutically appealing, personalized bioprinted constructions nevertheless present issues with reproducibility, uniformity, and fair access.³³ Because bioprinted items frequently incorporate living cells, biomaterials, and bioactive chemicals, they fall under the advanced therapy or combination product classifications, making them extremely difficult to regulate. Approval procedures are made more difficult by the absence of uniform regulatory frameworks created especially for bioprinting. Guidelines for sterility, quality control, and long-term safety evaluation are still being developed.³⁴

5.4 Practical Considerations and Cost-Benefit Analysis

One major obstacle to clinical translation is still cost. Production costs for bioprinted wound dressings are increased by the need for specialized tools, knowledgeable workers, and lengthy cell culture processes. Personalized bioprinting has obvious therapeutic benefits, but its viability from an economic standpoint in comparison to current wound care techniques needs to be carefully considered.³⁴ However, by reducing reliance on laboratories and facilitating point-of-care care, new technologies like automated printing systems and portable in situ bioprinters may contribute to cost savings. Bioprinting may eventually provide a good cost-benefit ratio if scalability and manufacturing efficiency can be increased, especially for complicated or non-healing wounds.³⁵

5. Industry Adaptability of 3D Bioprinting

 5.1. Sustainability

Materials can be recycled and repurposed thanks to three-dimensional bioprinting. In order to promote environmental sustainability, renewable resources are essential.  Sustainable materials made from these resources have remarkably low energy and carbon footprints.³⁹ by providing ecologically friendly production options, biopolymers play a crucial role in creating a connection between biomaterials and renewable reservoirs, which greatly enhances the sustainability of 3D bio printing. The materials used in 3D-bioprinted hydrogel dressings are intelligent and efficient biomaterials that can be synthetic (like synthetic fibers, peptides, and elastomers) or natural (like collagen, ALG, and gelatin).  Synthetic hydrogels are more widely used in 3D bioprinting because of their better mechanical qualities, biocompatibility, and lower batch-to-batch variation, even though hydrogels of natural origin offer benefits like easy recognition of cellular growth factors and biomolecules as well as their natural degradation by the body.³⁷ In addition to their intrinsic biocompatibility, which promotes and enhances cellular differentiation and proliferation, hydrogels have become increasingly popular in the field of tissue engineering. Conversely, conventional 3D printing frameworks make use of well-known hydrogel-based scaffold materials like ALG, GelMA, and ultra-short peptides, which allows for the creation of softer and more delicate tissue or even harder tissue structures. These essential characteristics characterize hydrogels as intelligent biomaterials that offer appropriate microenvironments for a wide range of cells that need specialized culture media, including neurons, chondrocytes, osteoblasts, and stem cells.³⁸

5.2. Advancing

To ensure excellent quality, safety, and efficacy, therapeutic items need to be approved by regulatory bodies including Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administrative (TGA) agency, the US FDA, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).  Product usage without a license or consent from these authorities can result in major, potentially fatal risks.  Even though 3D bioprinting technology has been thoroughly studied in recent years, it is still not fully developed due to a number of obstacles and limitations. These include the difficulty of developing a microvascular network in wound dressings during 3D bioprinting to supply nutrition to the wound area, as well as the difficulty of selecting a material and crosslinking mode appropriate for wounds in terms of physical, mechanical, and biological requirements.³⁹ Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) guidelines must be followed when producing altered bioprinting goods, and sterility assurance requirements for microbiological testing must be included.  It takes a long time, a lot of labor, and significant initial capital expenditures to produce a product that is clinically tested, ethically acceptable, and ready for the market.  Due to the complexity of the process and strict regulations, these high initial capital expenditures can make it challenging to commercialize pricey bioprinting items.  However, the cost of such bioprinting items must be evaluated indirectly, taking into account things like the total decrease in hospital expenses, length of stay, and number of reconstructive surgeries following severe burns, in addition to the cost per unit of manufacture.  Until fundamental standards of care are met in the early phases of treatment, experienced.⁴⁰

5.3 Durability and Lifespan

Dressings made of three-dimensional bioprinting are incredibly adaptable and may be tailored to meet the needs of wounds. However, the composition and structure of traditional dressings may not always precisely match the needs of the wound. The content, structure, and mechanical characteristics of the dressing can be accurately regulated using bioprinting.⁴¹ Dressings that are suited to particular wound types and healing stages can be created because of the technologies' versatility in utilizing various materials both separately and in combination as bioink. Because of their mechanical and physical resilience, dressings also serve the crucial role of adapting to the changing environment of a healing wound. The degradation of the dressing must coincide with the formation of new tissue in order to provide an efficient wound dressing.  For example, before being applied in vivo, the hydrogels particularly selected for use in wound healing models must retain their structure for at least 14 days.⁴²

5.4 Large-Scale Production

High material costs and technology constraints are the main things preventing 3D printing from being widely used.  Additionally, this technique is only applicable in certain situations due to issues including the print's lack of accuracy, color, and surface quality. Nevertheless, the literature now in publication has listed a number of 3D printing's financial advantages in spite of these drawbacks. The research notes that energy consumption can be reduced for complicated parts, even while 3D printing technology lowers device needs by making the production stage more accessible. Additionally, this technology makes it possible to establish new supply chains for the creation of novel items.  With 3D printing, configurations that are challenging or unfeasible with conventional manufacturing techniques become feasible. Additionally, 3D printing changes the battle for quality by basing the final product's quality on the viewpoint of the computer-based CAD file rather than the manufacturing method.⁴³ In contrast to conventional manufacturing techniques, 3D printing reduces lead times through rapid output while optimizing economies of scale and scope.  This strategy shortens supply chain times and further decentralizes production activity. According to this concept, the limitations and financial benefits of 3D printing technology combine to change production processes, and the commoditization of production infrastructure leads to the development of a larger ecosystem and greater production flexibility.⁴⁴

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES

The multiple signaling pathways and the synergistic interaction of numerous variables are essential to the complex process of wound healing.  Hydrogel-based wound dressings have recently surfaced as viable options, offering the following advantages: creating an ideal environment for wound healing and accelerating the healing process.  The capacity to create complex structures using medicinal chemicals, living cells, and personalized hydrogels allows bioprinting to precisely meet patient-specific requirements.  Numerous studies have shown that current advancements in hydrogel-based dressings and the development of 3D bioprinting techniques can be used to improve wound closure, re-epithelialization, and angiogenesis without raising cytotoxicity issues. The development of specialized 3D printer configurations that are painstakingly calibrated to satisfy the particular requirements of specific patients has been the focus of recent advancements in 3D printing technology.  These technological developments have led to the development of numerous novel techniques, such as advanced scanning systems, robotic mechanisms incorporated into 3D bioprinting applications, the smooth integration of artificial intelligence paradigms, and the groundbreaking use of bioinks for in situ bioprinting, which speeds up wound healing processes.  Bioprinting methods with four, five, and six axes of motion suggest that complex three-dimensional structures might be easily created, requiring sophisticated treatment choices for wounds of various depths. The following issues need to be resolved before 3D-bioprinted dressings can be used in clinical settings:

1. Reducing the size of the device without sacrificing sophisticated features, like the ability to create intricate tissue architectures with cellular precision, should be the top priority during the 3D bioprinter design process in order to develop and translate an acceptable wound dressing into a patient-friendly form;
2. The role of specialists should be restricted to controlling 3D printing parameters.  An important step toward accuracy and superior dressing production would be the use of artificial intelligence to control 3D bioprinting parameters.
3. The absence of tissue availability, a high morbidity rate at harvest sites, and the very time-consuming extraction and culturing procedures make it challenging to develop tailored therapeutics in this area of study.
4. In situ bioprinting is crucial in determining the future of 3D bioprinting in this larger context; researchers have recently studied the design of bioreactors for the mass production of skin tissue components and their integration with 3D bioprinters, which may enable the production of 3D bioprinted dressings with patient-specific bioinks in the future.  By directly applying live cells and biomaterials to wound sites, a novel technique known as "in situ bioprinting" helps wounds heal even after serious traumas.

REFERENCES

1. Umur E, Bayrak E, Arslan F, Bulut SB, Baysoy E, Kaleli-Can G, Ayan B. Advances in three dimensional bioprinting for wound healing: a comprehensive review. Applied Sciences. 2023 Sep 13;13(18):10269.
2. Pereira RF, Sousa A, Barrias CC, Bayat A, Granja PL, Bártolo PJ. Advances in bioprinted cell-laden hydrogels for skin tissue engineering. Biomanufacturing Reviews. 2017 Dec;2(1):1.
3. Proksch E, Brandner JM, Jensen JM. The skin: an indispensable barrier. Experimental dermatology. 2008 Dec;17(12):1063-72.
4. Ud?Din S, Volk SW, Bayat A. Regenerative healing, scar?free healing and scar formation across the species: current concepts and future perspectives. Experimental dermatology. 2014 Sep;23(9):615-9.
5. Raziyeva K, Kim Y, Zharkinbekov Z, Kassymbek K, Jimi S, Saparov A. Immunology of acute and chronic wound healing. Biomolecules. 2021 May 8;11(5):700.
6. Zaidi A, Green L. Physiology of haemostasis. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine. 2019 Mar 1;20(3):152-8.
7. Wilkinson HN, Hardman MJ. Wound healing: cellular mechanisms and pathological outcomes. Open biology. 2020 Sep 30;10(9):200223.
8. Dhivya S, Padma VV, Santhini E. Wound dressings–a review. BioMedicine. 2015 Nov 28;5(4):22.
9. Shi C, Wang C, Liu H, Li Q, Li R, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Shao Y, Wang J. Selection of appropriate wound dressing for various wounds. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology. 2020 Mar 19;8:182.
10. Lim D. Hydrophilic gels for biological use. Nature. 1960;185:4706.
11. Tottoli EM, Dorati R, Genta I, Chiesa E, Pisani S, Conti B. Skin wound healing process and new emerging technologies for skin wound care and regeneration. Pharmaceutics. 2020 Aug 5;12(8):735.
12. Cui R, Zhang L, Ou R, Xu Y, Xu L, Zhan XY, Li D. Polysaccharide-based hydrogels for wound dressing: Design considerations and clinical applications. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology. 2022 Mar 7;10:845735.
13. Panwar A, Tan LP. Current status of bioinks for micro-extrusion-based 3D bioprinting. Molecules. 2016 May 25;21(6):685.
14. Cui R, Zhang L, Ou R, Xu Y, Xu L, Zhan XY, Li D. Polysaccharide-based hydrogels for wound dressing: Design considerations and clinical applications. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology. 2022 Mar 7;10:845735.
15. Jang MJ, Bae SK, Jung YS, Kim JC, Kim JS, Park SK, Suh JS, Yi SJ, Ahn SH, Lim JO. Enhanced wound healing using a 3D printed VEGF-mimicking peptide incorporated hydrogel patch in a pig model. Biomedical Materials. 2021 Apr 9;16(4):045013.
16. Tan SH, Ngo ZH, Leavesley D, Liang K. Recent advances in the design of three-dimensional and bioprinted scaffolds for full-thickness wound healing. Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews. 2022 Feb 1;28(1):160-81.
17. Na KS, Kim D, Kim H, Koh WG, Lee HJ. The combined effect of epidermal growth factor and keratinocyte growth factor delivered by hyaluronic acid hydrogel on corneal wound healing. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2024 Jun 1;270:132365.
18. Beluze L, Bertsch A, Renaud P. Microstereolithography: a new process to build complex 3D objects. InDesign, Test, and Microfabrication of MEMS and MOEMS 1999 Mar 10 (Vol. 3680, pp. 808-817). SPIE.
19. Tabriz AG, Douroumis D. Recent advances in 3D printing for wound healing: A systematic review. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology. 2022 Aug 1;74:103564.
20. Bakarich SE, Gorkin III R, Gately R, Naficy S, in het Panhuis M, Spinks GM. 3D printing of tough hydrogel composites with spatially varying materials properties. Additive Manufacturing. 2017 Mar 1;14:24-30.
21. Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW. A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials. 2010 Aug 1;31(24):6121-30.
22. Lee JM, Sing SL, Zhou M, Yeong WY. 3D bioprinting processes: A perspective on classification and terminology. International journal of bioprinting. 2018 Jul 3;4(2):151.
23. Mao S, Man J, Wang J, Fu L, Yin C, Karimi-Maleh H. Research progress and challenges of bioprinting in wound dressing and healing: Bibliometrics-based analysis and perspectives. International Journal of Bioprinting. 2022 Dec 22;9(2):653.
24. Dai LG, Dai NT, Chen TY, Kang LY, Hsu SH. A bioprinted vascularized skin substitute with fibroblasts, keratinocytes, and endothelial progenitor cells for skin wound healing. Bioprinting. 2022 Dec 1;28:e00237.
25. Van De Water L, Varney S, Tomasek JJ. Mechanoregulation of the myofibroblast in wound contraction, scarring, and fibrosis: opportunities for new therapeutic intervention. Advances in wound care. 2013 May 1;2(4):122-41.
26. Son J, Mohamed HJ, Ha W, Naren A, Choi C, Kwon YH, Park S, Joung HC, Kang HW. Bioprinting of pre-vascularized constructs for enhanced in vivo neo-vascularization. Biofabrication. 2023 Apr 26;15(3):034101.
27. Daikuara LY, Chen X, Yue Z, Skropeta D, Wood FM, Fear MW, Wallace GG. 3D bioprinting constructs to facilitate skin regeneration. Advanced Functional Materials. 2022 Jan;32(3):2105080.
28. Vijayavenkataraman S. 3D bioprinting: challenges in commercialization and clinical translation. Journal of 3D printing in medicine. 2023 May 4;7(2):3DP8.
29. Albanna M, Binder KW, Murphy SV, Kim J, Qasem SA, Zhao W, Tan J, El-Amin IB, Dice DD, Marco J, Green J. In situ bioprinting of autologous skin cells accelerates wound healing of extensive excisional full-thickness wounds. Scientific reports. 2019 Feb 12;9(1):1856.
30. Wang C, Hu C, Cheng H, Qi W, Wang L, Wu T, Wu J, Cui X, Xu J, Pan H, Bian S. A Programmable Handheld Extrusion?Based Bioprinting Platform for In Situ Skin Wounds Dressing: Balance Mobility and Customizability. Advanced Science. 2024 Dec;11(46):2405823.
31. Sarian MN, Zulkefli N, ZAIN S, Maniam S, Fakurazi S. A review with updated perspectives on in vitro and in vivo wound healing models. Turkish journal of biology. 2023;47(4):236-46.
32. Vijayavenkataraman S. 3D bioprinting: challenges in commercialization and clinical translation. Journal of 3D printing in medicine. 2023 May 4;7(2):3DP8.
33. Tong A, Pham QL, Abatemarco P, Mathew A, Gupta D, Iyer S, Voronov R. Review of low-cost 3D bioprinters: state of the market and observed future trends. SLAS TECHNOLOGY: Translating Life Sciences Innovation. 2021 Aug;26(4):333-66.
34. Wu SC, Marston W, Armstrong DG. Wound care: the role of advanced wound-healing technologies. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2010 Sep 1;100(5):385-94.
35. Ng WL, Chua CK, Shen YF. Print me an organ! Why we are not there yet. Progress in Polymer Science. 2019 Oct 1;97:101145.
36. Webster A, Greenman J, Haswell SJ. Development of microfluidic devices for biomedical and clinical application. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology. 2011 Jan;86(1):10-7.
37. de Leon EH, Valle-Pérez AU, Khan ZN, Hauser CA. Intelligent and smart biomaterials for sustainable 3D printing applications. Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering. 2023 Jun 1;26:100450.
38. Falcone G, Mazzei P, Piccolo A, Esposito T, Mencherini T, Aquino RP, Del Gaudio P, Russo P. Advanced printable hydrogels from pre-crosslinked alginate as a new tool in semi solid extrusion 3D printing process. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2022 Jan 15;276:118746.
39. Zhang B, Luo Y, Ma L, Gao L, Li Y, Xue Q, Yang H, Cui Z. 3D bioprinting: an emerging technology full of opportunities and challenges. Bio-Design and Manufacturing. 2018 Mar;1(1):2-13.
40. Dearman BL, Boyce ST, Greenwood JE. Advances in skin tissue bioengineering and the challenges of clinical translation. Frontiers in Surgery. 2021 Aug 24;8:640879.
41. Long L, Liu W, Hu C, Yang L, Wang Y. Construction of multifunctional wound dressings with their application in chronic wound treatment. Biomaterials science. 2022;10(15):4058-76.
42. Fang H, Xu J, Ma H, Liu J, Xing E, Cheng YY, Wang H, Nie Y, Pan B, Song K. Functional materials of 3D bioprinting for wound dressings and skin tissue engineering applications: A review. International Journal of Bioprinting. 2023 Mar 18;9(5):757.
43. Ruffo M, Tuck C, Hague R. Make or buy analysis for rapid manufacturing. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 2007 Jan 23;13(1):23-9.
44. Sasson A, Johnson JC. The 3D printing order: variability, supercenters and supply chain reconfigurations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2016 Feb 8;46(1):82-94