Reasoning on Pore Terminology in 3D Bioprinting

Gels, 2024

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/gels10020153
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Terminology is pivotal for facilitating clear communication and minimizing ambiguity, especially in specialized fields such as chemistry. In materials science, a subset of chemistry, the term "pore" is traditionally linked to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) nomenclature, which categorizes pores into "micro", "meso", and "macro" based on size. However, applying this terminology in closely-related areas, such as 3D bioprinting, often leads to confusion owing to the lack of consensus on specific definitions and classifications tailored to each field. This review article critically examines the current use of pore terminology in the context of 3D bioprinting, highlighting the need for reassessment to avoid potential misunderstandings. We propose an alternative classification that aligns more closely with the specific requirements of bioprinting, suggesting a tentative size-based division of interconnected pores into 'parvo'-(d < 25 µm), 'medio'-(25 < d < 100 µm), and 'magno'-(d > 100 µm) pores, relying on the current understanding of the pore size role in tissue formation. The introduction of field-specific terminology for pore sizes in 3D bioprinting is essential to enhance the clarity and precision of research communication. This represents a step toward a more cohesive and specialized lexicon that aligns with the unique aspects of bioprinting and tissue engineering.