Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Jul-Aug;33(4):e70056.
doi: 10.1111/wrr.70056.

3D Bioprinting Skin Equivalents: A Methodological Perspective on Human Keratinocyte and Fibroblast Models for Wound Repair and Regeneration

Juliana Amorim Dos Santos  1   2 , Mylene Martins Monteiro  1 , Caio C Silva da Barros  2 , Larissa Di Carvalho Melo  1 , Ricardo D Coletta  3 , Rogerio M Castilho  2 , Cristiane H Squarize  2 , Eliete Neves Silva Guerra  1
Affiliations
Review

3D Bioprinting Skin Equivalents: A Methodological Perspective on Human Keratinocyte and Fibroblast Models for Wound Repair and Regeneration

Juliana Amorim Dos Santos et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2025 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: 3D bioprinter; methodological review; regeneration; skin; tissue engineering; wound repair.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. P. P. Adhikary, Q. Ul Ain, A. C. Hocke, and S. Hedtrich, “COVID‐19 Highlights the Model Dilemma in Biomedical Research,” Nature Reviews Materials 6, no. 5 (2021): 374–376, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578‐021‐00305‐z.
    1. A. Loewa, J. J. Feng, and S. Hedtrich, “Human Disease Models in Drug Development,” Nature Reviews Bioengineering 1, no. 8 (2023): 545–559, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222‐023‐00063‐3.
    1. O. Urzì, R. Gasparro, E. Costanzo, et al., “Three‐Dimensional Cell Cultures: The Bridge Between In Vitro and In Vivo Models,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 15 (2023): 12046, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241512046.
    1. S. V. Murphy and A. Atala, “3D Bioprinting of Tissues and Organs,” Nature Biotechnology 32, no. 8 (2014): 773–785, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2958.
    1. X. Ma, J. Liu, W. Zhu, et al., “3D Bioprinting of Functional Tissue Models for Personalized Drug Screening and In Vitro Disease Modeling,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 132 (2018): 235–251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.06.011.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources