Table 4 Comparison of scaffold fabrication techniques in SG tissue engineering

Cast molding for hydrogel

Straightforward method, compatible with different materials, inexpensive, able to be scaled up

Lack of simulating micro and nanostructure of natural ECM

Electrospinning

Suitable to prepare a 2D sheet with nanostructure, able to be scaled up

limitation in choosing materials and solvents for fabrication, lack of 3D structure

Magnetic printing

Easy for organizing cells in unified order,

Toxic effect of nanomagnetic materials in high concentration for cells, high cost for preparing specific equipment, probability of imbalance osmotic pressure for cells. limitation to be scaled up, limitation in choosing materials for printing (viscosity, printability)

Bioprinting

Suitable to make a complex structure, suitable to provide a 3D environment for cells,

Limitations in using materials for printing (viscosity, printability, and crosslinking methods), Limitations to be scaled up, challenges related to control and characterizing cell polarity, self-organization, and functionality, difficulty in preparing a homogeneous mixture of cells and bioink

Micropatterning

Suitable to mimic the ECM microenvironment both in 2D and 3D scaffolds

Difficulties in designing very complicated microstructure, high cost, difficulty in scale-up

Microfluidic device

Easy to handle, compatible for single-cell study, controlling biochemical signals and characterizing cell functionality and behavior; compatible to be combined with other advanced technology such as 3D printing and nanotechnologies to mimic fluid flow in natural cell niche and simulate nano and microenvironment of natural tissue, compatible for different cells co-culture or multi-culture

Difficulties to design, high cost, difficulty in scale-up for complicated models, limitations in using materials due to their crosslinking method and fabrication process,