“We can already print organs. Just not ones that work.”
3D printing biomaterials is rapidly evolving, with new applications emerging across healthcare. Much of the attention goes to printers and technologies, but the real progress often depends on how materials behave in a biological context.
In this interview, we speak with Prof. Dr. Jos Malda, professor of Biofabrication in Translational Regenerative Medicine at University Medical Center Utrecht and Utrecht University, where he leads research at the interface of biofabrication and regenerative medicine.
Where does the technology stand today from an academic perspective?
“It’s an exciting time. There’s a lot happening across the field. But it’s important to distinguish between 3D printing in general and bioprinting.
3D printing as a technology is already used in the clinic—for example, for personalised implants or surgical tools. That’s something we do on a daily basis.
Bioprinting, where cells are involved, is a different story. Once you start working with cells and bioinks, the complexity increases significantly. You have many more factors to take into account compared to printing metals or plastics.”
The technology is advancing rapidly, but clinical applications seem to lag behind. Why is that?
“There are several reasons. Regulation is a major one. Safety and GMP requirements play a role.
That’s also why, in the Netherlands, we’ve set up a pilot factory for regenerative medicine, of which Smart BioMaterials Center is part. The goal is to help translate developments from the lab into clinical applications by providing the right infrastructure.
Developing something in the lab is one thing. Getting it into a patient—and through clinical trials—requires a completely different level of investment and organisation.”
Looking back over the past years, where have you seen the biggest developments?
“It’s interesting, because the field actually started with inkjet printing. Early bioprinters were essentially modified desktop printers where people replaced the ink with cells.
From there, the field evolved into extrusion-based printing of hydrogels. And now, we see a wide range of technologies emerging, each with its own strengths.
What’s particularly exciting is that we no longer have to choose a single approach. We can combine technologies. For example, using one method to create vascular structures, and another to reinforce them mechanically.
We’re also seeing the integration of AI, which helps to move towards more standardised and reproducible products.”
You work on tissues like cartilage and bone. What determines which materials are suitable?
“It really depends on the function you want to achieve. You’re not just printing a shape—you’re creating something that needs to function biologically and mechanically.
Take cartilage as an example. Its function depends heavily on structure. Cells need to produce the right matrix, but that matrix also needs to be organised correctly.
If the internal structure is not right, it won’t be able to handle mechanical loads. So it’s not just about printing material in the shape of a tissue. It’s also about guiding how that tissue develops and matures.”
What does it take to move from printed structures to functional organs?
“Printing itself is about organisation; placing cells, materials and signals in the right position.
But functionality requires more than that. It requires communication between cells, maturation, and an understanding of developmental biology.
Cells don’t just stay where you put them. They move, interact and adapt. So the challenge is not only printing at high resolution, but also guiding how the tissue develops afterwards.”
Cartilage and bone are often seen as leading applications. Why is that?
“Cartilage is relatively simple in terms of biology. It has one main cell type, no blood vessels and no nerves. That makes it more accessible as a starting point.
At the same time, its function is mechanically complex. The structure of the tissue is critical to how it performs.
That’s also why these types of tissues—like cartilage or ear structures—are among the first to reach patients. They are simpler than organs with metabolic or regulatory functions, such as the liver or pancreas.”
There is a lot of hype around bioprinting. Are expectations realistic?
“Both yes and no. There is definitely hype. People often ask when we will be able to print a complete organ. At this stage, that’s not realistic.
But at the same time, we are already able to create functional pieces of tissue. For example, patches of cardiac cells that can contract. Some of these are already entering clinical trials.
So while we won’t have fully functional organs in the near future, it is realistic that within the next decade, several of these technologies will reach the market and improve patient outcomes.”
Which companies should we be watching?
“As an academic, I try to stay independent. We support companies in translating their technologies when we believe in them, but I prefer to observe developments from that perspective.”
Between promise and reality
If the first steps in 3D printing of biomaterials were about proving what is technically possible, the next phase is about making it work—reliably, safely, and at scale.
As Malda makes clear, the future of bioprinting will not be defined by a single breakthrough, but by the integration of technologies, materials and biological understanding.
In this series of three interviews with leading experts in the field of 3D printing, we explore how different approaches to 3D printing of biomaterials compare and where they may converge.
Also read:
