Moroni, L. et al. Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine. Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 21–37 (2018).
Zhang, Y. S. & Khademhosseini, A. Advances in engineering hydrogels. Science 356, eaaf3627 (2017).
Murphy, S. V. & Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 773–785 (2014).
Agarwal, T. et al. 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering: current state-of-the-art and challenges towards system standardization and clinical translation. Biofabrication 17, 042003 (2025).
Zhang, Y. S., Dolatshahi-Pirouz, A. & Orive, G. Regenerative cell therapy with 3D bioprinting. Science 385, 604–606 (2024).
Rahimi-Gorji, M. et al. Optimization of intraperitoneal aerosolized drug delivery using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling. Sci. Rep. 12, 6305 (2022).
Mishra, S., Kumar, V., Sarkar, J. & Rathore, A. S. CFD based mass transfer modeling of a single use bioreactor for production of monoclonal antibody biotherapeutics. Chem. Eng. J. 412, 128592 (2021).
Ferreira, M. et al. Advances in microfluidic systems and numerical modeling in biomedical applications: a review. Micromachines 15, 873 (2024).
Omar, A. M. et al. Geometry-based computational fluid dynamic model for predicting the biological behavior of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. J. Funct. Biomater. 13, 104 (2022).
Cao, B. et al. Studying the influence of finite element mesh size on the accuracy of ventricular tachycardia simulation. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 24, 351 (2023).
Fareez, U. N. M., Naqvi, S. A. A., Mahmud, M. & Temirel, M. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of bioprinting. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 13, e2400643 (2024).
Malekpour, A. & Chen, X. Printability and cell viability in extrusion-based bioprinting from experimental, computational, and machine learning views. J. Funct. Biomater. 13, 40 (2022).
Shi, J. et al. Shear stress analysis and its effects on cell viability and cell proliferation in drop-on-demand bioprinting. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express 4, 045028 (2018).
Göhl, J. et al. Simulations of 3D bioprinting: predicting bioprintability of nanofibrillar inks. Biofabrication 10, 034105 (2018). A key study combining computational simulations and experimental measurements to establish quantitative metrics for predicting extrusion bioink printability.
Shi, J., Song, J., Song, B. & Lu, W. F. Multi-objective optimization design through machine learning for drop-on-demand bioprinting. Engineering 5, 586–593 (2019).
Gómez-Blanco, J. C. et al. Computational simulation-based comparative analysis of standard 3D printing and conical nozzles for pneumatic and piston-driven bioprinting. Int. J. Bioprinting 9, 730 (2023).
Ates, G. & Bartolo, P. Computational fluid dynamics for the optimization of internal bioprinting parameters and mixing conditions. Int. J. Bioprinting 9, 0219 (2023).
Ning, L., Betancourt, N., Schreyer, D. J. & Chen, X. Characterization of cell damage and proliferative ability during and after bioprinting. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 4, 3906–3918 (2018). A key study integrating computational simulations and experimental measurements to quantify cell damages caused by shear and extensional stresses during extrusion bioprinting.
Shi, J. et al. Learning-based cell injection control for precise drop-on-demand cell printing. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 46, 1267–1279 (2018). A key study combining computational fluid dynamics, machine learning and experimental validations to investigate droplet formation and jet stability in inkjet bioprinting.
Kang, R. et al. 3D bioprinting technology and equipment based on microvalve control. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 121, 3768–3781 (2024).
Jiang, L., Yu, L., Premaratne, P., Zhang, Z. & Qin, H. CFD-based numerical modeling to predict the dimensions of printed droplets in electrohydrodynamic inkjet printing. J. Manuf. Process. 66, 125–132 (2021).
Moghadasi, H., Mollah, M. T., Marla, D., Saffari, H. & Spangenberg, J. Computational fluid dynamics modeling of top-down digital light processing additive manufacturing. Polymers 15, 2459 (2023).
Zhang, Q. et al. Design for the reduction of volume shrinkage-induced distortion in digital light processing 3D printing. Extreme Mech. Lett. 48, 101403 (2021). A foundational study on photopolymerization simulations and evolution of material properties in DLP-fabricated constructs.
Zhang, S., Vijayavenkataraman, S., Lu, W. F. & Fuh, J. Y. A review on the use of computational methods to characterize, design and optimize tissue engineering scaffolds, with a potential in 3D printing fabrication. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 107, 1329–1351 (2019).
Ahmadi Soufivand, A., Lee, S. J., Jüngst, T. & Budday, S. Challenges and perspectives in using finite element modeling to advance 3D bioprinting. Prog. Biomed. Eng. 7, 032004 (2025). A key review of modelling extrusion bioprinting highlighting computational simulation strategies across pre-printing, printing and post-printing stages while outlining the challenges that remain.
Carracciuolo, L. & D’Amora, U. Mathematical tools for simulation of 3D bioprinting processes on high-performance computing resources: the state of the art. Appl. Sci. 14, 6110 (2024).
Gupta, D. & Negi, N. P. 3D bioprinting: printing the future and recent advances. Bioprinting 27, e00211 (2022).
Schwab, A. et al. Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Chem. Rev. 120, 11028–11055 (2020).
Li, X. et al. Inkjet bioprinting of biomaterials. Chem. Rev. 120, 10793–10833 (2020).
Amorim, P. A. et al. Insights on shear rheology of inks for extrusion-based 3D bioprinting. Bioprinting 22, e00129 (2021).
Bird, R. B., Armstrong, R. C. & Hassager, O. Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids 2nd edn, Vol. 1 (Wiley, 1987).
Bird, R. B., Armstrong, R. C. & Hassager, O. Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids 2nd edn, Vol. 2 (Wiley, 1987).
Bercea, M. Rheology as a tool for fine-tuning the properties of printable bioinspired gels. Molecules 28, 2766 (2023).
Yu, S., Luo, Y., Chen, S., Fan, J. & Zhang, H. Quantitative assessment of hydrogel printability in extrusion bioprinting. Gels 12, 189 (2026).
Gao, T. et al. Optimization of gelatin–alginate composite bioink printability using rheological parameters: a systematic approach. Biofabrication 10, 034106 (2018).
Sánchez-Sánchez, R., Rodríguez-Rego, J. M., Macías-García, A., Mendoza-Cerezo, L. & Díaz-Parralejo, A. Relationship between shear-thinning rheological properties of bioinks and bioprinting parameters. Int. J. Bioprinting 9, 687 (2023).
Herschel, W. H. & Bulkley, R. Konsistenzmessungen von gummi-benzollösungen. Kolloid-Zeitschrift 39, 291–300 (1926).
Sahu, K., Valluri, P., Spelt, P. & Matar, O. Linear instability of pressure-driven channel flow of a Newtonian and a Herschel-Bulkley fluid. Phys. Fluids 19, 122101 (2007).
Kim, E. & Baek, J. Numerical study on the effects of non-dimensional parameters on drop-on-demand droplet formation dynamics and printability range in the up-scaled model. Phys. Fluids 24, 082103 (2012).
Wijshoff, H. The dynamics of the piezo inkjet printhead operation. Phys. Rep. 491, 77–177 (2010).
Levato, R. et al. Light-based vat-polymerization bioprinting. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 3, 47 (2023).
Na, K. et al. Effect of solution viscosity on retardation of cell sedimentation in DLP 3D printing of gelatin methacrylate/silk fibroin bioink. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 61, 340–347 (2018).
Lapique, F. & Redford, K. Curing effects on viscosity and mechanical properties of a commercial epoxy resin adhesive. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 22, 337–346 (2002).
Alparslan, C. & Bayraktar, Ş. Advances in digital light processing (DLP) bioprinting: a review of biomaterials and its applications, innovations, challenges, and future perspectives. Polymers 17, 1287 (2025).
Zhao, Z. et al. Origami by frontal photopolymerization. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602326 (2017).
Thalhamer, A., Fuchs, P., Strohmeier, L., Hasil, S. & Wolfberger, A. A simulation-based assessment of print accuracy for microelectronic parts manufactured with DLP 3D printing process. In Proc. 2022 23rd International Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Microsystems (IEEE, 2022).
White, S. R. & Hahn, H. T. Process modeling of composite materials: residual stress development during cure. Part I. Model formulation. J. Compos. Mater. 26, 2402–2422 (1992).
Wu, X., Xu, C., Zhang, Z. & Guo, C. Modeling and visualization of layered curing conversion profile in ceramic mask projection stereolithography process. Ceram. Int. 46, 25750–25757 (2020).
Zawawi, M. H. et al. A review: fundamentals of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). AIP Conf. Proc. 2030, 020252 (2018).
Mao, J., Li, F., Wang, S., Zhao, L. & Di, Y. A CFD-FEM-IBM simulation scheme for the strong coupling between the fluid and the structure with large deformations and movements. Comput. Struct. 310, 107673 (2025).
Jeong, W. & Seong, J. Comparison of effects on technical variances of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software based on finite element and finite volume methods. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 78, 19–26 (2014).
Sourov, M. A. et al. A general simulation-based study on printability of inks in direct ink writing. Sci. Rep. 15, 1–16 (2025).
Majeed, R. et al. Parallel implementation of FEM solver for shared memory using OpenMP. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2375102 (2022).
Galloway, M. et al. Implementation of nozzle motion for material extrusion additive manufacturing in Ansys Fluent. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 19, e2397816 (2024).
Nooranidoost, M., Izbassarov, D., Tasoglu, S. & Muradoglu, M. A computational study of droplet-based bioprinting: effects of viscoelasticity. Phys. Fluids 31, 081901 (2019).
Mézel, C., Souquet, A., Hallo, L. & Guillemot, F. Bioprinting by laser-induced forward transfer for tissue engineering applications: jet formation modeling. Biofabrication 2, 014103 (2010).
Jarauta, A., Ryzhakov, P., Secanell, M., Waghmare, P. R. & Pons-Prats, J. Numerical study of droplet dynamics in a polymer electrolyte fuel cell gas channel using an embedded Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. J. Power Sources 323, 201–212 (2016).
Biswas, R. & Strawn, R. C. Tetrahedral and hexahedral mesh adaptation for CFD problems. Appl. Numer. Math. 26, 135–151 (1998).
Xie, Z. et al. Adaptive unstructured mesh modelling of multiphase flows. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 67, 104–110 (2014).
Panton, R. L. Incompressible Flow (Wiley, 2024).
Gharraei, R., Bergstrom, D. J. & Chen, X. Extrusion bioprinting from a fluid mechanics perspective. Int. J. Bioprinting 10, 3973 (2024).
Gerhart, A. L., Hochstein, J. I. & Gerhart, P. M. Munson, Young and Okiishi’s Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (Wiley, 2020).
Blanco, J. C. G. et al. Optimising bioprinting nozzles through computational modelling and design of experiments. Biomimetics 9, 460 (2024).
Wei, Q., An, Y., Li, M. & Zhao, X. Research on the flow behavior of bio-ink inside the extrusion nozzle during printing. J. Appl. Phys. 136, 174701 (2024).
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. Fluid Mechanics (Elsevier, 1987).
Müller, M., Öztürk, E., Arlov, Ø, Gatenholm, P. & Zenobi-Wong, M. Alginate sulfate–nanocellulose bioinks for cartilage bioprinting applications. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45, 210–223 (2016).
Liu, W. et al. Extrusion bioprinting of shear-thinning gelatin methacryloyl bioinks. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 6, 1601451 (2017).
Chan, K., Pericleous, K. & Cross, M. Numerical simulation of flows encountered during mold-filling. Appl. Math. Model. 15, 624–631 (1991).
Tryggvason, G., Scardovelli, R. & Zaleski, S. Direct Numerical Simulations of Gas–Liquid Multiphase Flows (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
Albadawi, A., Donoghue, D., Robinson, A., Murray, D. & Delauré, Y. On the assessment of a VOF based compressive interface capturing scheme for the analysis of bubble impact on and bounce from a flat horizontal surface. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 65, 82–97 (2014).
Bilger, C., Aboukhedr, M., Vogiatzaki, K. & Cant, R. S. Evaluation of two-phase flow solvers using level set and volume of fluid methods. J. Comput. Phys. 345, 665–686 (2017).
Hartmann, D., Meinke, M. & Schröder, W. The constrained reinitialization equation for level set methods. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 1514–1535 (2010).
Hartmann, D., Meinke, M. & Schröder, W. On accuracy and efficiency of constrained reinitialization. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 63, 1347–1358 (2010).
Osher, S. & Fedkiw, R. P. Level set methods: an overview and some recent results. J. Comput. Phys. 169, 463–502 (2001).
Sussman, M., Smereka, P. & Osher, S. A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow. J. Comput. Phys. 114, 146–159 (1994).
Kim, H. & Park, S. Coupled level-set and volume of fluid (CLSVOF) solver for air lubrication method of a flat plate. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9, 231 (2021).
Kasmaiee, S., Tadjfar, M., Kasmaiee, S. & Ahmadi, G. Linear stability analysis of surface waves of liquid jet injected in transverse gas flow with different angles. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 38, 107–138 (2024).
Ouyang, L. Study on Microextrusion-Based 3D Bioprinting and Bioink Crosslinking Mechanisms (Springer, 2019).
Brackbill, J. U., Kothe, D. B. & Zemach, C. A continuum method for modeling surface tension. J. Comput. Phys. 100, 335–354 (1992).
Gueyffier, D., Li, J., Nadim, A., Scardovelli, R. & Zaleski, S. Volume-of-fluid interface tracking with smoothed surface stress methods for three-dimensional flows. J. Comput. Phys. 152, 423–456 (1999).
Loghman, F., Kami, A., Azami, M. & Abedini, V. Numerical study on the influence of process parameters in direct ink writing of high viscosity bio-inks. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. L 237, 274–282 (2022).
Liravi, F., Darleux, R. & Toyserkani, E. Additive manufacturing of 3D structures with non-Newtonian highly viscous fluids: finite element modeling and experimental validation. Addit. Manuf. 13, 113–123 (2017).
Gómez-Blanco, J. C. et al. Bioink temperature influence on shear stress, pressure and velocity using computational simulation. Processes 8, 865 (2020).
Song, K., Zhang, D., Yin, J. & Huang, Y. Computational study of extrusion bioprinting with jammed gelatin microgel-based composite ink. Addit. Manuf. 41, 101963 (2021).
Emmermacher, J. et al. Engineering considerations on extrusion-based bioprinting: interactions of material behavior, mechanical forces and cells in the printing needle. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab7553 (2020).
Zaeri, A., Zgeib, R., Cao, K., Zhang, F. & Chang, R. C. Numerical analysis on the effects of microfluidic-based bioprinting parameters on the microfiber geometrical outcomes. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07392-0 (2022). A key study presenting computational modelling of coaxial bioprinting to investigate flow behaviours and the formation of core–shell hydrogel filaments.
Chand, R., Muhire, B. S. & Vijayavenkataraman, S. Computational fluid dynamics assessment of the effect of bioprinting parameters in extrusion bioprinting. Int. J. Bioprinting 8, 545 (2022).
Reid, J. A. et al. Accessible bioprinting: adaptation of a low-cost 3D-printer for precise cell placement and stem cell differentiation. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/2/025017 (2016).
Guo, C.-F., Zhang, M. & Bhandari, B. A comparative study between syringe-based and screw-based 3D food printers by computational simulation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 162, 397–404 (2019).
Magalhães, I. P., Oliveira, P. M. D., Dernowsek, J., Casas, E. B. L. & Casas, M. S. L. Investigation of the effect of nozzle design on rheological bioprinting properties using computational fluid dynamics. Matéria https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-707620190003.0714 (2019).
Ramezani, H., Mohammad Mirjamali, S. & He, Y. Simulations of extrusion 3D printing of chitosan hydrogels. Appl. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157530 (2022).
Barton, I. E. Comparison of SIMPLE- and PISO-type algorithms for transient flows. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 26, 459–483 (1998).
Chen, D. X. & Chen, D. X. Extrusion Bioprinting of Scaffolds (Springer, 2019).
Prendergast, M. E. & Burdick, J. A. Computational modeling and experimental characterization of extrusion printing into suspension baths. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 11, 2101679 (2022). A foundational study demonstrating computational simulations of embedded bioprinting processes.
Narei, H. et al. Numerical simulation of a core–shell polymer strand in material extrusion additive manufacturing. Polymers 13, 476 (2021).
Ahmad, A. et al. Coaxial bioprinting of a stentable and endothelialized human coronary artery-sized in vitro model. J. Mater. Chem. B https://doi.org/10.1039/d4tb00601a (2024).
Shin, S. et al. Gelation of uniform interfacial diffusant in embedded 3D printing. Adv. Funct. Mater. 33, 2307435 (2023).
Friedrich, L. M. & Seppala, J. E. Simulated filament shapes in embedded 3D printing. Soft Matter 17, 8027–8046 (2021).
McCormack, A., Highley, C. B., Leslie, N. R. & Melchels, F. P. 3D printing in suspension baths: keeping the promises of bioprinting afloat. Trends Biotechnol. 38, 584–593 (2020).
Mirdamadi, E., Muselimyan, N., Koti, P., Asfour, H. & Sarvazyan, N. Agarose slurry as a support medium for bioprinting and culturing freestanding cell-laden hydrogel constructs. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 6, 158–164 (2019).
Huang, W., Ren, Y. & Russell, R. D. Moving mesh methods based on moving mesh partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 113, 279–290 (1994).
Paul, A. et al. Thermodynamics, Diffusion and the Kirkendall Effect in Solids (Springer, 2014).
Brunel, L. G., Hull, S. M. & Heilshorn, S. C. Engineered assistive materials for 3D bioprinting: support baths and sacrificial inks. Biofabrication 14, 032001 (2022).
Chiesa, I. et al. Modeling the three-dimensional bioprinting process of β-sheet self-assembling peptide hydrogel scaffolds. Front. Med. Technol. 2, 571626 (2020).
Akkineni, A. R., Ahlfeld, T., Lode, A. & Gelinsky, M. A versatile method for combining different biopolymers in a core/shell fashion by 3D plotting to achieve mechanically robust constructs. Biofabrication 8, 045001 (2016).
Jung, J. & Hassanein, A. Three-phase CFD analytical modeling of blood flow. Med. Eng. Phys. 30, 91–103 (2008).
Mirani, B., Stefanek, E., Godau, B., Hossein Dabiri, S. M. & Akbari, M. Microfluidic 3D printing of a photo-cross-linkable bioink using insights from computational modeling. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 7, 3269–3280 (2021).
Guazzelli, N., Cacopardo, L., Corti, A. & Ahluwalia, A. An integrated in silico–in vitro approach for bioprinting core–shell bioarchitectures. Int. J. Bioprinting 9, 771 (2023).
Dong, H., Carr, W. W. & Morris, J. F. An experimental study of drop-on-demand drop formation. Phys. Fluids 18, 072102 (2006).
Visser, C. W. et al. Dynamics of high-speed micro-drop impact: numerical simulations and experiments at frame-to-frame times below 100 ns. Soft Matter 11, 1708–1722 (2015).
Shah, R. & Mohan, R. V. Computational modeling of droplet-based printing using multiphase volume of fluid (VOF) method: prediction of flow, spread behavior, and printability. Fluids 10, 123 (2025).
Suh, Y. & Son, G. A sharp-interface level-set method for simulation of a piezoelectric inkjet process. Numer. Heat Transf. B: Fundam. 55, 295–312 (2009).
Liu, N., Sheng, X., Zhang, M., Han, W. & Wang, K. Squeeze-type piezoelectric inkjet printhead actuating waveform design method based on numerical simulation and experiment. Micromachines https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13101695 (2022).
Tofan, T., Borodinas, S. & Jasevičius, R. Droplet trajectory movement modeling using a drop-on-demand inkjet printhead simulations. Mathematics 13, 280 (2025).
Lohse, D. Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 54, 349–382 (2022). A key study outlining the fundamental fluid dynamics challenges governing droplet formation and jet stability in inkjet printing.
Kalaitzis, A. et al. Jetting dynamics of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids via laser-induced forward transfer: experimental and simulation studies. Appl. Surf. Sci. 465, 136–142 (2019).
Hu, Q. et al. Longitudinal and transverse piezoelectric effects of ferroelectret metamaterials with positive and negative Poisson’s ratios. Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 142902 (2024).
Kim, S., Sohn, D. K. & Ko, H. S. Numerical study on piezoelectric inkjet with liquid compressibility. Phys. Fluids https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0213865 (2024).
Kim, S., Choi, J. H., Sohn, D. K. & Ko, H. S. The effect of ink supply pressure on piezoelectric inkjet. Micromachines https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13040615 (2022).
Cui, X., Boland, T., D’Lima, D. D. & Lotz, M. K. Thermal inkjet printing in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Recent Pat. Drug Deliv. Formul. 6, 149–155 (2012).
Sohrabi, S. & Liu, Y. Modeling thermal inkjet and cell printing process using modified pseudopotential and thermal lattice Boltzmann methods. Phys. Rev. E 97, 033105 (2018).
Suh, Y. & Son, G. A level-set method for simulation of a thermal inkjet process. Numer. Heat Transf. B: Fundam. 54, 138–156 (2008).
Sen, A. & Darabi, J. Droplet ejection performance of a monolithic thermal inkjet print head. J. Micromech. Microeng. 17, 1420 (2007).
Lindemann, T. et al. Three-dimensional CFD-simulation of a thermal bubble jet printhead. In NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show, 227–230 (NSTI-Nanotech, 2004).
Chang, J. & Sun, X. Laser-induced forward transfer based laser bioprinting in biomedical applications. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1255782 (2023).
Qu, J. et al. Printing quality improvement for laser-induced forward transfer bioprinting: numerical modeling and experimental validation. Phys. Fluids https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0054675 (2021).
Brown, M. S., Brasz, C. F., Ventikos, Y. & Arnold, C. B. Impulsively actuated jets from thin liquid films for high-resolution printing applications. J. Fluid Mech. 709, 341–370 (2012).
Sotrop, J., Kersch, A., Domke, M., Heise, G. & Huber, H. P. Numerical simulation of ultrafast expansion as the driving mechanism for confined laser ablation with ultra-short laser pulses. Appl. Phys. A 113, 397–411 (2013).
He, B., Yang, S., Qin, Z., Wen, B. & Zhang, C. The roles of wettability and surface tension in droplet formation during inkjet printing. Sci. Rep. 7, 11841 (2017).
Jing, S. et al. Advances in volumetric bioprinting. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ad0978 (2023).
Reid, A., Jackson, J. C. & Windmill, J. Voxel based method for predictive modelling of solidification and stress in digital light processing based additive manufacture. Soft Matter 17, 1881–1887 (2021).
Myrick, M. L. et al. The Kubelka-Munk diffuse reflectance formula revisited. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 46, 140–165 (2011).
Bernal, P. N. et al. The road ahead in materials and technologies for volumetric 3D printing. Nat. Rev. Mater. 10.1038/s41578-025-00785-3 (2025).
Shusteff, M. et al. One-step volumetric additive manufacturing of complex polymer structures. Sci. Adv. 3, eaao5496 (2017). A seminal study introducing volumetric additive manufacturing and combining optical modelling with reaction–diffusion simulations of photopolymerization to predict 3D curing.
Salajeghe, R. et al. Numerical modeling of tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing based on energy threshold method. Addit. Manuf. 96, 104552 (2024).
Álvarez-Castaño, M. I. et al. Holographic tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing. Nat. Commun. 16, 1551 (2025).
Jacobs, P. F. Fundamentals of Stereolithography (SME, 1992).
Salajeghe, R., Meile, D. H., Kruse, C. S., Marla, D. & Spangenberg, J. Numerical modeling of part sedimentation during volumetric additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 66, 103459 (2023).
Long, K. N., Scott, T. F., Qi, H. J., Bowman, C. N. & Dunn, M. L. Photomechanics of light-activated polymers. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 57, 1103–1121 (2009).
Hosseinabadi, H. G. et al. Ink material selection and optical design considerations in DLP 3D printing. Appl. Mater. Today 30, 101721 (2023).
Lim, K. S. et al. New visible-light photoinitiating system for improved print fidelity in gelatin-based bioinks. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2, 1752–1762 (2016).
Buback, M., Huckestein, B. & Russell, G. T. Modeling of termination in intermediate and high conversion free radical polymerizations. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 195, 539–554 (1994).
Achilias, D. S. A review of modeling of diffusion controlled polymerization reactions. Macromol. Theory Simul. 16, 319–347 (2007).
Zennifer, A., Manivannan, S., Sethuraman, S., Kumbar, S. G. & Sundaramurthi, D. 3D bioprinting and photocrosslinking: emerging strategies & future perspectives. Biomater. Adv. 134, 112576 (2022).
Nieto, D., Marchal Corrales, J. A., Jorge de Mora, A. & Moroni, L. Fundamentals of light-cell–polymer interactions in photo-cross-linking based bioprinting. APL Bioeng. 4, 041502 (2020).
Madrid-Wolff, J., Boniface, A., Loterie, D., Delrot, P. & Moser, C. Controlling light in scattering materials for volumetric additive manufacturing. Adv. Sci. 9, 2105144 (2022).
Yazdian Kashani, S., Keshavarz Moraveji, M. & Bonakdar, S. Computational and experimental studies of a cell-imprinted-based integrated microfluidic device for biomedical applications. Sci. Rep. 11, 12130 (2021).
Boularaoui, S., Al Hussein, G., Khan, K. A., Christoforou, N. & Stefanini, C. An overview of extrusion-based bioprinting with a focus on induced shear stress and its effect on cell viability. Bioprinting https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00093 (2020).
Li, M., Tian, X., Schreyer, D. J. & Chen, X. Effect of needle geometry on flow rate and cell damage in the dispensing-based biofabrication process. Biotechnol. Prog. 27, 1777–1784 (2011).
Li, M., Tian, X., Kozinski, J. A., Chen, X. & Hwang, D. K. Modeling mechanical cell damage in the bioprinting process employing a conical needle. J. Mech. Med. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219519415500736 (2015).
Ding, Y., Xu, G.-K. & Wang, G.-F. On the determination of elastic moduli of cells by AFM based indentation. Sci. Rep. 7, 45575 (2017).
Müller, S. J. et al. A hyperelastic model for simulating cells in flow. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 20, 509–520 (2021).
Müller, S. J., Fabry, B. & Gekle, S. Predicting cell stress and strain during extrusion bioprinting. Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064061 (2023).
Tirella, A., Vozzi, F., Vozzi, G. & Ahluwalia, A. PAM2 (piston assisted microsyringe): a new rapid prototyping technique for biofabrication of cell incorporated scaffolds. Tissue Eng. Part C Methods 17, 229–237 (2011).
Xiang, Y. et al. Iohexol as a refractive index tuning agent for bioinks in high cell density bioprinting. Biomater. Sci. 13, 3958–3971 (2025).
Bernal, P. N. et al. Volumetric bioprinting of organoids and optically tuned hydrogels to build liver-like metabolic biofactories. Adv. Mater. 34, 2110054 (2022).
Cooke, M. E. & Rosenzweig, D. H. The rheology of direct and suspended extrusion bioprinting. APL Bioeng. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0031475 (2021).
Wang, P., Sun, Y., Diao, L. & Liu, H. Considering cell viability in 3D printing of structured inks: a comparative and equivalent analysis of fluid forces. Int. J. Bioprinting https://doi.org/10.36922/ijb.2362 (2024).
Zhang, Y. S. et al. 3D extrusion bioprinting. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1, 75 (2021).
Bernasconi, R. et al. Piezoelectric drop-on-demand inkjet printing of high-viscosity inks. Adv. Eng. Mater. 24, 2100733 (2022).
Reis, N. & Derby, B. Ink jet deposition of ceramic suspensions: modeling and experiments of droplet formation. MRS Online Proc. Libr. 625, 117 (2000).
Jang, D., Kim, D. & Moon, J. Influence of fluid physical properties on ink-jet printability. Langmuir 25, 2629–2635 (2009).
Chávez-Madero, C. et al. Using chaotic advection for facile high-throughput fabrication of ordered multilayer micro- and nanostructures: continuous chaotic printing. Biofabrication 12, 035023 (2020).
Liu, W. et al. Rapid continuous multimaterial extrusion bioprinting. Adv. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201604630 (2017).
Zhao, L. et al. Developing the optimized control scheme for continuous and layer-wise DLP 3D printing by CFD simulation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 125, 1511–1529 (2023). A foundational study combining computational simulations and experimental validations to analyse key parameters in DLP printing.
Whyte, D. J., Doeven, E. H., Sutti, A., Kouzani, A. Z. & Adams, S. D. Volumetric additive manufacturing: a new frontier in layer-less 3D printing. Addit. Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.104094 (2024).
Vakilha, M. & Safdari Shadloo, M. A smoothed particle hydrodynamics method for two-phase electrohydrodynamics modeling with Nernst–Planck equations. Phys. Fluids https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0235072 (2024).
Sexton, Z. A. et al. Rapid model-guided design of organ-scale synthetic vasculature for biomanufacturing. Science 388, 1198–1204 (2025).
Shi, J. et al. Study on performance simulation of vascular-like flow channel model based on TPMS structure. Biomimetics 8, 69 (2023).
Florczak, S. et al. Adaptive and context-aware volumetric printing. Nature 645, 108–114 (2025).
Sego, T. J. et al. Computational fluid dynamic analysis of bioprinted self-supporting perfused tissue models. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 117, 798–815 (2019).
Bhattacharyya, A., Janarthanan, G. & Noh, I. Nano-biomaterials for designing functional bioinks towards complex tissue and organ regeneration in 3D bioprinting. Addit. Manuf. 37, 101639 (2021).
Kim, Y., Yuk, H., Zhao, R., Chester, S. A. & Zhao, X. Printing ferromagnetic domains for untethered fast-transforming soft materials. Nature 558, 274–279 (2018).
Arif, Z. U., Khalid, M. Y., Ahmed, W. & Arshad, H. A review on four-dimensional (4D) bioprinting in pursuit of advanced tissue engineering applications. Bioprinting 27, e00203 (2022).
De Giorgi, A. et al. Diffusion of curcumin in PLGA-based carriers for drug delivery: a molecular dynamics study. J. Mol. Model. 30, 219 (2024).
dos Santos, B. C., Noritomi, P. Y., da Silva, J. V. L., Maia, I. A. & Manzini, B. M. Biological multiscale computational modeling: a promising tool for 3D bioprinting and tissue engineering. Bioprinting 28, e00234 (2022).
Pearce, D., Fischer, S., Huda, F. & Vahdati, A. Applications of computer modeling and simulation in cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 17, 1–13 (2020).
Starruß, J., De Back, W., Brusch, L. & Deutsch, A. Morpheus: a user-friendly modeling environment for multiscale and multicellular systems biology. Bioinformatics 30, 1331–1332 (2014).
Ruberu, K. et al. Coupling machine learning with 3D bioprinting to fast track optimisation of extrusion printing. Appl. Mater. Today https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2020.100914 (2021).
Fu, Z., Angeline, V. & Sun, W. Evaluation of printing parameters on 3D extrusion printing of pluronic hydrogels and machine learning guided parameter recommendation. Int. J. Bioprinting https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v7i4.434 (2024).
An, J., Chua, C. K. & Mironov, V. Application of machine learning in 3D bioprinting: focus on development of big data and digital twin. Int. J. Bioprinting 7, 342 (2021).
Wang, D. et al. Microfluidic bioprinting of tough hydrogel-based vascular conduits for functional blood vessels. Sci. Adv. 8, eabq6900 (2022).
Acosta-Vélez, G. F., Linsley, C. S., Craig, M. C. & Wu, B. M. Photocurable bioink for the inkjet 3D pharming of hydrophilic drugs. Bioengineering 4, 11 (2017).
Gudapati, H., Parisi, D., Colby, R. H. & Ozbolat, I. T. Rheological investigation of collagen, fibrinogen, and thrombin solutions for drop-on-demand 3D bioprinting. Soft Matter 16, 10506–10517 (2020).
You, S., Wang, P., Schimelman, J., Hwang, H. H. & Chen, S. High-fidelity 3D printing using flashing photopolymerization. Addit. Manuf. 30, 100834 (2019).
Hakim Khalili, M. et al. Additive manufacturing and physicomechanical characteristics of PEGDA hydrogels: recent advances and perspective for tissue engineering. Polymers 15, 2341 (2023).
Gregory, T. et al. Rheological characterization of cell-laden alginate-gelatin hydrogels for 3D biofabrication. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 136, 105474 (2022).
Ng, W. L. et al. Controlling droplet impact velocity and droplet volume: key factors to achieving high cell viability in sub-nanoliter droplet-based bioprinting. Int. J. Bioprinting 8, 424 (2021).
You, S. et al. High cell density and high-resolution 3D bioprinting for fabricating vascularized tissues. Sci. Adv. 9, eade7923 (2023).
Chirianni, F., Vairo, G. & Marino, M. Development of process design tools for extrusion-based bioprinting: from numerical simulations to nomograms through reduced-order modeling. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 419, 116685 (2024).
Shaukat, U., Rossegger, E. & Schlögl, S. A review of multi-material 3D printing of functional materials via vat photopolymerization. Polymers https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14122449 (2022).
Miri, A. K. et al. Microfluidics-enabled multimaterial maskless stereolithographic bioprinting. Adv. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201800242 (2018).
Wu, C., Zhang, R., Zhao, P., Li, L. & Zhang, D. Curing simulation and data-driven curing curve prediction of thermoset composites. Sci. Rep. 14, 31860 (2024).
Hölzl, K. et al. Bioink properties before, during and after 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/032002 (2016).
Mardles, E. W. J. Viscosity of suspensions and the einstein equation. Nature 145, 970–970 (1940).
Diamantides, N., Dugopolski, C., Blahut, E., Kennedy, S. & Bonassar, L. J. High density cell seeding affects the rheology and printability of collagen bioinks. Biofabrication 11, 045016 (2019).
Majumder, N., Mishra, A. & Ghosh, S. Effect of varying cell densities on the rheological properties of the bioink. Bioprinting https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00241 (2022).
Boothe, T. et al. A tunable refractive index matching medium for live imaging cells, tissues and model organisms. eLife 6, e27240 (2017).
Matsson, J. E. An Introduction to Ansys Fluent 2023 (SDC Publications, 2023).
Tezduyar, T. E. Finite element methods for flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 8, 83–130 (2001).
Chen, G. et al. OpenFOAM for computational fluid dynamics. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 61, 354–363 (2014).
Brindha, J., Edwina, R. G. P., Rajesh, P. & Rani, P. Influence of rheological properties of protein bio-inks on printability: a simulation and validation study. Mater. Today: Proc. 3, 3285–3295 (2016).
Mark, A., Rundqvist, R. & Edelvik, F. Comparison between different immersed boundary conditions for simulation of complex fluid flows. Fluid Dyn. Mater. Process. 7, 241–258 (2011).
