Table 1. Outlines of various tissue assembly methods.
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages | Resolution | Scalability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spinning | ||||
| Wet spinning | Adjustable mechanical properties High cell viability |
Complex fabrication process | 7–250 μm [12–16] |
∼1.5 mm [4] |
| Electrospinning | High porosity scaffold High resolution |
Low mechanical stiffness Difficulty of controlling cell density |
<1 μm [18,81–83] |
∼1 mm [85] |
| 3D Bioprinting | ||||
| Cell layering | Simple fabrication process Adjustable tissue thickness |
Low planar resolution | Single-cell thickness [23] |
Millimeter scale [101] |
| Inkjet type | High resolution (close to single cell) | Clogging of nozzle Poor printability on vertical direction Limited to low viscosity bioinks |
30–100 μm [37–44] |
∼400 μm [89] |
| Extrusion type | Printable with high viscosity bioinks Printable on vertical direction |
Clogging of nozzle Damages on cells due to shear force |
100–500 μm [47–54] |
Centimeter scale [91,92] |
| Stereo-lithographic type | High spatial resolution Less concerns from shear force |
Cell damages from UV light Limited types of bioinks |
5–50 μm [58–63] |
Centimeter scale [62] |
| Spheroid assembly type | Less concerns on immunogenicity High cell density |
Low structural resolution Requires preparation of spheroids |
Single spheroid size [93–96] |
Centimeter scale [96] |