Additive Manufacturing of Biomaterials: Integrated Translational Ecosystems, Process–Structure–Property Interactions and Emerging Paradigms for Next-Generation Biomedical Engineering

Additive manufacturing (AM) has expanded the design space of biomaterials for biomedical engineering, enabling patient-specific geometries, controlled porosity, multi-material constructs and cell-compatible fabrication. However, clinical translation remains constrained by a mismatch between fabrication capability and biological, mechanical and regulatory performance. Unlike reviews focused on individual material families, isolated AM routes or specific applications, this review interprets AM of biomaterials as an integrated biomaterial–process–structure–property–translation ecosystem. It examines how material chemistry, feedstock state, printing route, architecture, post-processing and biological response jointly determine the reliability of acellular and cellular constructs, with particular emphasis on clinically relevant performance, reproducibility and long-term safety. Metallic, ceramic, polymeric, hydrogel-based and composite biomaterials are analysed alongside binder jetting (BJ), directed energy deposition (DED), material extrusion (ME) and jetting (MJ), powder bed fusion (PBF), VAT photopolymerisation and bioprinting. The review identifies recurring challenges across routes, including restricted material–process compatibility, limited prediction of process–structure–property relationships, post-processing-induced changes in biological performance, insufficient standardisation of printability and biofunctionality metrics, incomplete validation of cell-laden and vascularised constructs and weak transfer of laboratory protocols to clinically robust workflows. The main conclusion is that progress will depend less on expanding printable geometries alone and more on integrated optimisation of materials, processing windows, structural fidelity, biological validation, quality assurance and translational readiness. This ecosystem-level perspective provides a framework for evaluating limitations and defining future priorities in AM-based biomaterials for regenerative medicine, implants and precision biomedical engineering.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
Published
2026-07-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb17080365
Primary Topic
3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Additive Manufacturing of Biomaterials: Integrated Translational Ecosystems, Process–Structure–Property Interactions and Emerging Paradigms for Next-Generation Biomedical Engineering

Biao Zhao, Wenfeng Ding, Marta L. S. Barbosa, André F. V. Pedroso et al.
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
3D Printing in Biomedical Research
article

Additive Manufacturing of Biomaterials: Integrated Translational Ecosystems, Process–Structure–Property Interactions and Emerging Paradigms for Next-Generation Biomedical Engineering

Biao Zhao, Wenfeng Ding, Marta L. S. Barbosa, André F. V. Pedroso, Ning Qian, F.J.G. Silva, Luciana Silva
article en

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) has expanded the design space of biomaterials for biomedical engineering, enabling patient-specific geometries, controlled porosity, multi-material constructs and cell-compatible fabrication. However, clinical translation remains constrained by a mismatch between fabrication capability and biological, mechanical and regulatory performance. Unlike reviews focused on individual material families, isolated AM routes or specific applications, this review interprets AM of biomaterials as an integrated biomaterial–process–structure–property–translation ecosystem. It examines how material chemistry, feedstock state, printing route, architecture, post-processing and biological response jointly determine the reliability of acellular and cellular constructs, with particular emphasis on clinically relevant performance, reproducibility and long-term safety. Metallic, ceramic, polymeric, hydrogel-based and composite biomaterials are analysed alongside binder jetting (BJ), directed energy deposition (DED), material extrusion (ME) and jetting (MJ), powder bed fusion (PBF), VAT photopolymerisation and bioprinting. The review identifies recurring challenges across routes, including restricted material–process compatibility, limited prediction of process–structure–property relationships, post-processing-induced changes in biological performance, insufficient standardisation of printability and biofunctionality metrics, incomplete validation of cell-laden and vascularised constructs and weak transfer of laboratory protocols to clinically robust workflows. The main conclusion is that progress will depend less on expanding printable geometries alone and more on integrated optimisation of materials, processing windows, structural fidelity, biological validation, quality assurance and translational readiness. This ecosystem-level perspective provides a framework for evaluating limitations and defining future priorities in AM-based biomaterials for regenerative medicine, implants and precision biomedical engineering.

Journal of Functional BiomaterialsVol. 17(8)
Universidade do Porto (PT), Institute of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Mangement (PT), Polytechnic Institute of Porto (PT), Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
3D Printing in Biomedical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.