# Three-dimensional bioprinting of artificial blood vessel: Process, bioinks, and challenges
Researcher: Ge Zhang
Chinese name: 张格
ORCID identity anchor: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-3246
Canonical researcher: https://drgezhang.com/#person
Journal: International Journal of Bioprinting
Year: 2023
Type: Article
DOI: 10.18063/ijb.740
Canonical page: https://drgezhang.com/papers/doi-10-18063-ijb-740.html
Markdown record: https://drgezhang.com/papers/doi-10-18063-ijb-740.md
## Full Authors
1. Ya-Chen Hou
2. Xiaolin Cui
3. Zhen Qin
4. Chang Su
5. Ge Zhang
6. Jun-Nan Tang
7. Jing-An Li
8. Jin-Ying Zhang
## Official Abstract
The coronary artery bypass grafting is a main treatment for restoring the blood supply to the ischemic site by bypassing the narrow part, thereby improving the heart function of the patients. Autologous blood vessels are preferred in coronary artery bypass grafting, but their availability is often limited by due to the underlying disease. Thus, tissue-engineered vascular grafts that are devoid of thrombosis and have mechanical properties comparable to those of natural vessels are urgently required for clinical applications. Most of the commercially available artificial implants are made from polymers, which are prone to thrombosis and restenosis. The biomimetic artificial blood vessel containing vascular tissue cells is the most ideal implant material. Due to its precision control ability, three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a promising method to prepare biomimetic system. In the 3D bioprinting process, the bioink is at the core state for building the topological structure and keeping the cell viable. Therefore, in this review, the basic properties and viable materials of the bioink are discussed, and the research of natural polymers in bioink, including decellularized extracellular matrix, hyaluronic acid, and collagen, is emphasized. Besides, the advantages of alginate and Pluronic F127, which are the mainstream sacrificial material during the preparation of artificial vascular graft, are also reviewed. Finally, an overview of the applications in the field of artificial blood vessel is also presented.
Text reproduced verbatim from PMC ([source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10261152/)); [DOI](https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.740); [CC-BY-NC-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
## Research & review context
### Research fields
- Cardiovascular tissue engineering
- Vascular biomaterials
### Review topics
- Bioink design for vascular constructs
- Printing processes and translation barriers
### Scientific role
Narrative synthesis connecting hydrogel functions, cell compatibility, fabrication methods and clinical-translation constraints.
### Evidence position
Secondary engineering and preclinical synthesis; no new clinical cohort, pooled clinical effect or demonstrated graft efficacy.
### Related concepts
- Support and sacrificial materials
- Embedded hydrogel printing
- Endothelialization and durability
### Possible citation contexts
- Background: material and process trade-offs in tissue-engineered vascular graft research.
- Methods rationale: choosing supportive bioinks, removable templates and embedded printing, while tracing quantitative examples to original experiments.
Possible literature-review contexts, not evidence of existing citations. Read the findings and Evidence Scope before citing the original article.
## Evidence Base
**Vascular bioprinting: bioink functions, fabrication strategies and translational evidence boundaries**
A narrative review connects vascular-graft design requirements with supportive and sacrificial bioinks, printing methods and translational constraints. Its examples derive from prior material, cell and animal studies; it reports no new patient cohort or clinical trial.
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| material functions distinguished | 2: support materials and sacrificial materials |
| broad crosslinking categories discussed | 2: chemical/covalent and physical interactions |
| conventional printing families summarized | 3: extrusion, material jetting and vat polymerization |
| additional embedded-printing strategy | FRESH, discussed separately in Section 4.4 |
| illustrative cited FRESH process | approximately 22 degrees C support bath; release at 37 degrees C; representative alginate filament diameter 199 +/- 41 micrometres |
### Counting note
These numbers describe the review organization and one cited technical example. They are not a count of trials, included studies, recruited participants, pooled specimens or a clinical cohort. The FRESH filament measurement comes from Hinton et al. 2015, not a new experiment by the review authors. No overall participant n is assigned.
## Research Question
How should bioink composition, rheology, crosslinking and printing strategy be matched to the structural and biological requirements of tissue-engineered vascular constructs, and what limits their clinical translation?
## Author Evidence Summary
This review organizes the engineering choices involved in printing vascular constructs. It explains why preserving a lumen and tissue geometry is insufficient without cell compatibility, nutrient transport, mechanical support and a functional endothelial interface. The discussion distinguishes supportive materials from sacrificial templates, examines natural and synthetic hydrogel options, and compares extrusion, jetting, vat polymerization and embedded printing approaches. Examples such as FRESH illustrate how a removable support bath can preserve soft hydrogel structures during fabrication. Those quantitative examples are findings from cited primary experiments, not measurements generated by this review. The synthesis identifies trade-offs between printability, strength and cell viability and discusses maturation, sterilization, manufacturing and regulatory barriers. It does not demonstrate clinical graft effectiveness or identify a universally superior bioink.
## Key Findings
### KF1: Vascular construct design requires coordinated cellular and extracellular-matrix functions rather than a hollow tube alone.
Context: Conceptual synthesis of native-vessel organization and graft design requirements
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| cellular components highlighted | 3: endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts |
| supporting environment | extracellular matrix supports cellular organization and tissue function |
| design scope | endothelial compatibility, patency, mechanical performance and nutrient transport must be considered together; no clinical efficacy estimate is supplied |
Source locator: Section 1: Introduction (sec1-1), paragraph describing endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, fibroblasts and ECM; Sections 2.1-2.3; Table 1
### KF2: Bioinks have different structural roles, and supportive and sacrificial functions should be distinguished.
Context: Material selection for constructing vessel walls and creating removable lumen templates
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| functional roles | 2: support materials and sacrificial materials |
| supportive examples discussed | modified PEG, hyaluronic-acid systems, collagen/gelatin systems and decellularized extracellular matrix |
| sacrificial examples discussed | Pluronic F-127 and alginate-based strategies; material roles depend on formulation and process |
| scope | a material name alone does not determine graft suitability or whether it acts as support or template |
Source locator: Section 3: Bioinks for 3D bioprinting (sec1-3); Section 3.1: Support hydrogel; Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3, including Pluronic F-127 (sec3-6), Alginate (sec3-7) and Discussion on the existing hydrogel (sec3-8); Table 2
### KF3: Printability and cell compatibility depend on interacting rheological and crosslinking choices.
Context: Narrative synthesis of hydrogel processing requirements; not a universal validated manufacturing specification
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| hydrogel properties explicitly considered | 4: shear thinning, yield stress, viscosity and molding ability |
| broad crosslinking classes | 2: chemical/covalent crosslinking and physical interactions such as hydrogen bonding or electrostatic attraction |
| trade-off | viscosity and rapid stabilization can preserve geometry while extrusion stress, light exposure and other processing conditions can harm cells |
| scope | performance depends on formulation, cell loading and process conditions; no single optimal recipe is established |
Source locator: Section 1: Introduction (sec1-1), crosslinking paragraph; Section 2.2: Hydrogel requirements (sec2-2); Section 2.3: Forming requirements (sec2-3); Section 4.1: Material extrusion (sec2-6)
### KF4: The review compares conventional printing families and an embedded-support strategy with different constraints.
Context: Methodological comparison of fabrication approaches rather than a controlled head-to-head effectiveness experiment
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| conventional families | 3: material extrusion, material jetting and vat polymerization |
| embedded strategy | FRESH is discussed separately as printing within a removable support bath |
| method-specific limitations | extrusion involves shear and resolution trade-offs; jetting restricts ink viscosity; vat polymerization requires suitable photosensitive materials; FRESH requires rapid and compatible ink gelation |
| scope | advantages depend on the intended construct and ink; the review does not establish one method as clinically superior |
Source locator: Section 4: 3D bioprinting techniques (sec1-5); Sections 4.1-4.4 (sec2-6 through sec2-9); Table 3
### KF5: A cited FRESH experiment illustrates how a removable support bath can preserve soft hydrogel geometry.
Context: Illustrative primary technical experiment by Hinton et al. 2015, summarized in the review; parameters are not a universal vascular-graft standard
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| support-bath condition | approximately 22 degrees C during printing |
| release condition | 37 degrees C to melt the gelatin support bath |
| representative alginate filament | 199 +/- 41 micrometres diameter |
| measurement boundary | filament diameter is not vessel-lumen diameter, clinical graft patency, burst pressure or a patient outcome |
Source locator: Section 4.4: Freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogel (FRESH) (sec2-9), reference 196; Hinton et al., Science Advances 2015, DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1500758, Results paragraphs on support-bath rheology and alginate-filament printing, Figure 2A-B and Materials and Methods: FRESH 3D printing
### KF6: The review identifies unresolved steps between printed constructs and clinical vascular grafts.
Context: Translational appraisal as of the 2023 review, informed by cited in vitro and animal examples rather than new clinical outcome data
| Evidence | Value |
| --- | --- |
| evidence level | review of engineering and preclinical demonstrations; no new patient cohort or clinical trial |
| historical statement | the authors reported no clinical vessel-bioprinting cases in their review context at publication in 2023 |
| barriers discussed | mechanical durability, endothelial function, maturation, reproducible manufacturing, sterilization and safety |
| time boundary | the historical statement is not an independently updated 2026 claim about every product, trial or regulatory authorization |
Source locator: Section 1: Introduction (sec1-1), clinical-translation paragraph; Section 3.2.3: Discussion on the existing hydrogel (sec3-8); Section 5: Conclusion and future perspectives (sec1-6)
## Review Design & Evidence Synthesis
### Review profile
- Study Design: Narrative methodological review of vascular bioprinting materials, process choices and translational challenges; no new clinical recruitment or pooled meta-analysis
- Evidence Type: Literature synthesis of biomaterial properties, printing methods, in vitro constructs and selected preclinical vascular-graft examples
- Diseases Covered: coronary artery disease and ischemic-heart-disease bypass context, vascular disease requiring graft replacement
- Translation Scope: Engineering and preclinical design framework for tissue-engineered vascular constructs; cited technical demonstrations are not evidence of clinical graft efficacy or routine availability
- Evidence domains: vascular structure and graft requirements, bioink rheology and cell compatibility, supportive and sacrificial hydrogels, crosslinking and printing methods, preclinical translation and manufacturing barriers
## What This Review Adds
- Organizes vascular-bioprinting design around interacting material, cellular and process requirements.
- Separates supportive bioinks, sacrificial templates and removable support baths, helping explain why different fabrication strategies use the same material differently.
- Connects rheology and crosslinking trade-offs with specific printing approaches and translational barriers.
- Provides a route to relevant primary technical studies while keeping literature examples distinct from original evidence generated by the review.
## Evidence Scope
### Supports
- A qualitative design framework for comparing vascular-bioprinting materials and processes.
- The need to balance geometry, cell compatibility, mechanical behavior, nutrient transport and manufacturing constraints.
- The distinction between supportive materials, sacrificial templates and removable support baths.
- A source-located FRESH technical example whose specific parameters were cross-checked against the cited primary paper.
- A historical account of translational challenges discussed in the 2023 publication.
### Does Not Establish
- A pooled clinical effect, a patient sample size, a randomized comparison or a meta-analytic estimate.
- A systematic search with reproducible eligibility criteria, formal risk-of-bias assessment or comprehensive evidence coverage.
- That any described printed construct is a routinely available, clinically effective or regulator-approved vascular graft.
- That an illustrative filament dimension or cell-viability result is a clinical graft outcome or universal manufacturing standard.
- A universally optimal bioink, crosslinking method or printing technology.
- Current legal or regulatory requirements from the review discussion, or an updated 2026 inventory of trials or products.
### Limitations
- This is a narrative review and does not report a systematic search, formal study-selection flow or pooled effect analysis.
- The examples span different materials, cell systems, constructs and animal contexts, so quantitative values are not directly interchangeable.
- Illustrative experimental numbers come from cited primary studies and are not original measurements generated by the review.
- No patient cohort, graft-level clinical efficacy comparison or long-term human safety validation was conducted in this publication.
- The review reflects literature available at its 2023 publication; it is not a continually updated registry of products, clinical cases or approvals.
- Engineering specifications and regulatory discussion require their own current authoritative sources before operational use; this page does not present them as validated current requirements.
## When This Study Is Useful to Cite
### CU1: What design constraints should be considered in vascular bioprinting?
Qualitative synthesis of cellular, matrix, rheological and mechanical requirements; no clinical effect estimate.
Evidence: [KF1](#kf1), [KF3](#kf3)
### CU2: How do supportive and sacrificial bioinks differ?
A functional material-design distinction that depends on formulation and process.
Evidence: [KF2](#kf2)
### CU3: Which printing methods are relevant to vascular constructs?
Narrative method comparison; no controlled ranking of clinical superiority.
Evidence: [KF4](#kf4)
### CU4: How does a removable support bath enable soft-hydrogel printing?
FRESH mechanism and a source-traced primary technical example; cite Hinton et al. directly for its quantitative experiment.
Evidence: [KF5](#kf5)
### CU5: What separates vascular-printing demonstrations from clinical graft use?
Historical translational appraisal as of the 2023 review, without a current product/approval inventory.
Evidence: [KF6](#kf6)
## What This Study Should Not Be Cited to Claim
- A pooled clinical effect, a patient sample size, a randomized comparison or a meta-analytic estimate.
- A systematic search with reproducible eligibility criteria, formal risk-of-bias assessment or comprehensive evidence coverage.
- That any described printed construct is a routinely available, clinically effective or regulator-approved vascular graft.
- That an illustrative filament dimension or cell-viability result is a clinical graft outcome or universal manufacturing standard.
- A universally optimal bioink, crosslinking method or printing technology.
- Current legal or regulatory requirements from the review discussion, or an updated 2026 inventory of trials or products.
## Evidence Matrix
### KF1: Vascular construct design requires coordinated cellular and extracellular-matrix functions rather than a hollow tube alone.
- Context: Conceptual synthesis of native-vessel organization and graft design requirements
- Finding: Vascular construct design requires coordinated cellular and extracellular-matrix functions rather than a hollow tube alone. cellular components highlighted: 3: endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts; supporting environment: extracellular matrix supports cellular organization and tissue function; design scope: endothelial compatibility, patency, mechanical performance and nutrient transport must be considered together; no clinical efficacy estimate is supplied
- Evidence Level: Narrative methodological synthesis
- Scope: Conceptual synthesis of native-vessel organization and graft design requirements
- Source Locator: Section 1: Introduction (sec1-1), paragraph describing endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, fibroblasts and ECM; Sections 2.1-2.3; Table 1
- Evidence refs: [KF1](#kf1)
### KF2: Bioinks have different structural roles, and supportive and sacrificial functions should be distinguished.
- Context: Material selection for constructing vessel walls and creating removable lumen templates
- Finding: Bioinks have different structural roles, and supportive and sacrificial functions should be distinguished. functional roles: 2: support materials and sacrificial materials; supportive examples discussed: modified PEG, hyaluronic-acid systems, collagen/gelatin systems and decellularized extracellular matrix; sacrificial examples discussed: Pluronic F-127 and alginate-based strategies; material roles depend on formulation and process; scope: a material name alone does not determine graft suitability or whether it acts as support or template
- Evidence Level: Narrative methodological synthesis
- Scope: Material selection for constructing vessel walls and creating removable lumen templates
- Source Locator: Section 3: Bioinks for 3D bioprinting (sec1-3); Section 3.1: Support hydrogel; Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3, including Pluronic F-127 (sec3-6), Alginate (sec3-7) and Discussion on the existing hydrogel (sec3-8); Table 2
- Evidence refs: [KF2](#kf2)
### KF3: Printability and cell compatibility depend on interacting rheological and crosslinking choices.
- Context: Narrative synthesis of hydrogel processing requirements; not a universal validated manufacturing specification
- Finding: Printability and cell compatibility depend on interacting rheological and crosslinking choices. hydrogel properties explicitly considered: 4: shear thinning, yield stress, viscosity and molding ability; broad crosslinking classes: 2: chemical/covalent crosslinking and physical interactions such as hydrogen bonding or electrostatic attraction; trade-off: viscosity and rapid stabilization can preserve geometry while extrusion stress, light exposure and other processing conditions can harm cells; scope: performance depends on formulation, cell loading and process conditions; no single optimal recipe is established
- Evidence Level: Narrative methodological synthesis
- Scope: Narrative synthesis of hydrogel processing requirements; not a universal validated manufacturing specification
- Source Locator: Section 1: Introduction (sec1-1), crosslinking paragraph; Section 2.2: Hydrogel requirements (sec2-2); Section 2.3: Forming requirements (sec2-3); Section 4.1: Material extrusion (sec2-6)
- Evidence refs: [KF3](#kf3)
### KF4: The review compares conventional printing families and an embedded-support strategy with different constraints.
- Context: Methodological comparison of fabrication approaches rather than a controlled head-to-head effectiveness experiment
- Finding: The review compares conventional printing families and an embedded-support strategy with different constraints. conventional families: 3: material extrusion, material jetting and vat polymerization; embedded strategy: FRESH is discussed separately as printing within a removable support bath; method-specific limitations: extrusion involves shear and resolution trade-offs; jetting restricts ink viscosity; vat polymerization requires suitable photosensitive materials; FRESH requires rapid and compatible ink gelation; scope: advantages depend on the intended construct and ink; the review does not establish one method as clinically superior
- Evidence Level: Narrative methodological synthesis
- Scope: Methodological comparison of fabrication approaches rather than a controlled head-to-head effectiveness experiment
- Source Locator: Section 4: 3D bioprinting techniques (sec1-5); Sections 4.1-4.4 (sec2-6 through sec2-9); Table 3
- Evidence refs: [KF4](#kf4)
### KF5: A cited FRESH experiment illustrates how a removable support bath can preserve soft hydrogel geometry.
- Context: Illustrative primary technical experiment by Hinton et al. 2015, summarized in the review; parameters are not a universal vascular-graft standard
- Finding: A cited FRESH experiment illustrates how a removable support bath can preserve soft hydrogel geometry. support-bath condition: approximately 22 degrees C during printing; release condition: 37 degrees C to melt the gelatin support bath; representative alginate filament: 199 +/- 41 micrometres diameter; measurement boundary: filament diameter is not vessel-lumen diameter, clinical graft patency, burst pressure or a patient outcome
- Evidence Level: Cited primary technical example, independently checked
- Scope: Illustrative primary technical experiment by Hinton et al. 2015, summarized in the review; parameters are not a universal vascular-graft standard
- Source Locator: Section 4.4: Freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogel (FRESH) (sec2-9), reference 196; Hinton et al., Science Advances 2015, DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1500758, Results paragraphs on support-bath rheology and alginate-filament printing, Figure 2A-B and Materials and Methods: FRESH 3D printing
- Evidence refs: [KF5](#kf5)
### KF6: The review identifies unresolved steps between printed constructs and clinical vascular grafts.
- Context: Translational appraisal as of the 2023 review, informed by cited in vitro and animal examples rather than new clinical outcome data
- Finding: The review identifies unresolved steps between printed constructs and clinical vascular grafts. evidence level: review of engineering and preclinical demonstrations; no new patient cohort or clinical trial; historical statement: the authors reported no clinical vessel-bioprinting cases in their review context at publication in 2023; barriers discussed: mechanical durability, endothelial function, maturation, reproducible manufacturing, sterilization and safety; time boundary: the historical statement is not an independently updated 2026 claim about every product, trial or regulatory authorization
- Evidence Level: Narrative methodological synthesis
- Scope: Translational appraisal as of the 2023 review, informed by cited in vitro and animal examples rather than new clinical outcome data
- Source Locator: Section 1: Introduction (sec1-1), clinical-translation paragraph; Section 3.2.3: Discussion on the existing hydrogel (sec3-8); Section 5: Conclusion and future perspectives (sec1-6)
- Evidence refs: [KF6](#kf6)
## Q&A
### Is this an original patient study of printed vascular grafts?
No. It is a narrative review of materials, printing processes and translation challenges. It has no newly recruited clinical cohort and no pooled patient-effect estimate.
Evidence: KF6
### Why is printing a hollow channel insufficient for a vascular graft?
The review connects vessel geometry with endothelial function, supportive smooth muscle and fibroblast roles, extracellular matrix, mechanical behavior and nutrient transport. A channel alone does not establish patency or clinical durability.
Evidence: KF1
### What is the difference between supportive and sacrificial materials?
Supportive materials help form and stabilize the construct. Sacrificial materials create temporary templates that can be removed to leave a lumen. The role depends on formulation and fabrication strategy.
Evidence: KF2
### Why does increasing ink viscosity not solve every printing problem?
Higher viscosity can help preserve geometry but may require higher extrusion pressure and increase cell stress. Crosslinking, cell loading and transport also matter, so printability and biological performance must be balanced.
Evidence: KF3
### Which fabrication approaches are compared?
The review summarizes extrusion, material jetting and vat polymerization, then discusses FRESH as an embedded-support strategy. Their constraints differ and the review is not a controlled clinical comparison.
Evidence: KF4
### What does the 199 +/- 41 micrometre FRESH value describe?
It is the diameter of a representative alginate filament in the cited Hinton et al. technical experiment. It is not a patient outcome, a graft lumen diameter or a measurement newly generated by this review.
Evidence: KF5
### Does the review demonstrate clinical benefit or regulatory approval?
No. It describes engineering and preclinical evidence and translation barriers. Its statement about the absence of reported clinical cases is tied to the 2023 review context and is not an updated inventory of every trial or product.
Evidence: KF6
## Concepts & Entities
### Application
tissue-engineered vascular grafts, vascular bioprinting, coronary bypass graft context
### Materials
hyaluronic acid, collagen, gelatin methacryloyl, decellularized extracellular matrix, alginate, Pluronic F-127, modified polyethylene glycol
### Processes
material extrusion, material jetting, vat polymerization, FRESH, sacrificial templating, crosslinking
### Design Constraints
shear thinning, yield stress, cell compatibility, endothelial function, mechanical durability, nutrient transport
## Related Research
- [Biodegradable Mg alloy modified with bioactive exosomes for cardiovascular stent application](https://drgezhang.com/papers/doi-10-1016-j-jma-2023-05-007.html) — A cardiovascular-stent biomaterial study involving exosome-modified magnesium alloy; a distinct device/material application that complements the review design discussion without validating bioprinted grafts. (DOI: 10.1016/j.jma.2023.05.007)
- [Modeling Diabetic Cardiomyopathy Using Human Cardiac Organoids: Effects of High Glucose and Lipid Conditions](https://drgezhang.com/papers/doi-10-1016-j-cbi-2025-111421.html) — A human cardiac-organoid model study illustrating another three-dimensional cardiovascular research context; organoid disease modeling and implantable vascular-graft engineering have different endpoints and evidence requirements. (DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2025.111421)
## Publication & Provenance
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.740
- Publisher: https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.740
- Doi Url: https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.740
- PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37323481/
- Pmc Url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10261152/
- PMCID: PMC10261152
- Version Of Record: International Journal of Bioprinting 2023;9(4):740, published 28 April 2023; DOI 10.18063/ijb.740; PubMed publication type Review
- License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), article-level license in PMC. This evidence summary uses original factual synthesis; no figures or tables are reproduced.
- License Url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
- Author Identity: Ge Zhang is author 5, affiliated with Cardiology at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University and the associated Henan cardiovascular research centers. The same DOI is listed in public ORCID 0000-0002-3116-3246, including work put-code 136257902. The article itself does not supply an ORCID for this author.
- Orcid Url: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-3246
- Primary Technical Example Url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4646826/
- Primary Technical Example: Hinton et al., Three-dimensional printing of complex biological structures by freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels, Science Advances 2015;1:e1500758, DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1500758, review reference 196. The support-bath temperature, release temperature and illustrative filament diameter were independently cross-checked in the primary text.
- Supporting Material: No article-level supplementary experimental dataset is required for the claims on this review page; the source is a literature synthesis, with technical examples traced to its references.
- Preprint Relation: No linked preprint was identified in the inspected publisher/PMC/Crossref metadata; no new exhaustive literature search was performed.
- Evidence Basis: Version-of-record full-text XML, PubMed/Europe PMC author-affiliation and publication-type metadata, Crossref DOI metadata, public ORCID works and the cited primary FRESH paper, checked 15 October 2026.
## Evidence-page notice
Author-controlled evidence page for this review. This original synthesis separates cited technical examples from the review's own contribution and does not replace the publisher's version of record.
## Links
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.740
- HTML page: https://drgezhang.com/papers/doi-10-18063-ijb-740.html
- Google Scholar query: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Three-dimensional%20bioprinting%20of%20artificial%20blood%20vessel%3A%20Process%2C%20bioinks%2C%20and%20challenges%22
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-3246