| Literature DB >> 29137814 |
Lorenzo Moroni1, Thomas Boland2, Jason A Burdick3, Carmelo De Maria4, Brian Derby5, Gabor Forgacs6, Jürgen Groll7, Qing Li8, Jos Malda9, Vladimir A Mironov10, Carlos Mota11, Makoto Nakamura12, Wenmiao Shu13, Shoji Takeuchi14, Tim B F Woodfield15, Tao Xu16, James J Yoo17, Giovanni Vozzi4.
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.Mesh：
Substances：
Year: 2017 PMID： 29137814 DOI： 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trends Biotechnol ISSN： 0167-7799 Impact factor: 19.536