Bioprinting is an emerging additive manufacturing technique which shows an outstanding potential for shaping customized functional substitutes for tissue engineering. Its introduction into the clinical space in order to replace injured organs could ideally overcome the limitations faced with allografts. Presently, even though there have been years of prolific research in the field, there is a wide gap to bridge in order to bring bioprinting from “bench to bedside”. This is due to the fact that bioprinted designs have not yet reached the complexity required for clinical use, nor have clear GMP (good manufacturing practices) rules or precise regulatory guidelines been established. This review provides an overview of some of the most recent and remarkable achievements for skin, heart, pancreas and cartilage bioprinting breakthroughs while highlighting the critical shortcomings for each tissue type which is keeping this technique from becoming widespread reality.

Objective: Our goal is to evaluate the effects of heat and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation on P3 facial respirator microstructure. Intervention: P3 facial filters were exposed to dry heat and UV sterilization procedures. Methods: P3 facial filter samples underwent a standardized sterilization process based on dry heat and UV irradiation techniques. We analyzed critical parameters of internal microstructure, such as fiber thickness and porosity, before and after sterilization, using 3D data obtained with synchrotron radiation-based X-ray computed microtomography (micro-CT). The analyzed filter has two inner layers called the “finer” and “coarser” layers. The “finer” layer consists of a dense fiber network, while the “coarser” layer has a less compact fiber network. Results: Analysis of 3D images showed no statistically significant differences between the P3 filter of the controls and the dry heat/UV sterilized samples. In particular, averages fiber thickness in the finer layer of the control and the 60° dry heated and UV-irradiated sample groups was almost identical. Average fiber thickness for the coarser layer of the control and the 60° dry heated and UV-irradiated sample groups was very similar, measuring 19.33 µm (±0.47), 18.33 µm (±0.47), and 18.66 µm (±0.47), respectively. There was no substantial difference in maximum fiber thickness in the finer layers and coarser layers. For the control group samples, maximum thickness was on average 11.43 µm (±1.24) in the finer layer and 59.33 µm (±6.79) in the coarser layer. Similarly, the 60° dry heated group samples were thickened 12.2 µm (±0.21) in the finer layer and 57.33 µm (±1.24) in the coarser layer, while for the UV-irradiated group, the mean max thickness was 12.23 µm (±0.90) in the finer layer and 58.00 µm (±6.68) in the coarser layer. Theoretical porosity analysis resulted in 74% and 88% for the finer and coarser layers. The finer layers’ theoretical porosity tended to decrease in dry heat and UV-irradiated samples compared with the respective control samples. Conclusions: Dry heat and UV sterilization processes do not substantially alter the morphometry of the P3 filter samples’ internal microstructure, as studied with micro-CT. The current study suggests that safe P3 filter facepiece reusability is theoretically feasible and should be further investigated.