PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATION

2026

Tiny bricks for oral bioprinting: Exploring gingiva and dental pulp-derived organ building blocks

A tensile test divider icon

Grinchevskaia LR, Kardosh AV, Izhbulatova VR, et al.

International Journal of Bioprinting

I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

RESEARCH SUMMARY
This study developed and compared organ building blocks derived from human gingiva- and dental pulp-derived stromal cells as potential cellular components for periodontal tissue engineering and 3D bioprinting. Five OBB designs were evaluated: gingiva-only, pulp-only, a 1:1 mixture of gingiva and pulp cells, pulp-core OBBs surrounded by gingival cells, and gingiva-core OBBs surrounded by pulp cells. All OBBs compacted substantially during culture, although their morphology, cell packing, spreading behavior, stiffness, extracellular matrix organization, sprouting, and metabolic characteristics depended on cell composition and spatial arrangement. Pulp-derived OBBs formed the densest structures and were mechanically stiffest, whereas gingiva-derived OBBs were softer and exhibited stronger spreading behavior. At day 3, pulp-derived OBBs had an average Young’s modulus of 1.6 ยฑ 0.6 kPa compared with 0.8 ยฑ 0.5 kPa for gingiva-derived OBBs; by day 7, pulp-derived OBB stiffness increased to 3.7 ยฑ 1.7 kPa while gingiva-derived OBBs remained approximately 0.8 ยฑ 0.4 kPa. Mixed and layered two-cell OBBs exhibited intermediate mechanical properties near 1 kPa at day 3, with some groups stiffening during further culture. Collagen I accumulated centrally within all OBB types, while fibronectin formed distributed extracellular networks. Two-cell OBBs generally spread and sprouted more effectively than monoculture OBBs when transferred to adhesive surfaces or embedded in PEG-modified fibrin hydrogel. Fluorescence lifetime imaging also revealed distinct metabolic profiles between pulp- and gingiva-derived cells. The authors concluded that combining the two oral stromal cell types improved the structural, mechanical, and functional characteristics of OBBs and that mixed or layered OBB designs could provide customizable cellular building blocks for future periodontal bioprinting applications.
CellScale hexagons, without text

CELLSCALE INSTRUMENT USED

MicroTester

A CellScale MicroTester G2 was used to quantify the bulk mechanical stiffness of oral tissue organ building blocks using parallel-plate compression. The tested OBBs consisted of gingiva-derived stromal cells, dental pulp-derived stromal cells, a 1:1 mixture of both cell types, pulp-derived cores layered with gingival cells, and gingiva-derived cores layered with pulp cells. OBBs were removed from their agarose culture plates and transferred to the MicroTester working chamber, which was filled with PBS. Individual OBBs were positioned beneath the upper compression plate using the instrument’s frontal and lateral imaging systems. Each OBB was compressed to 50% of its original height over 20 seconds, held in the compressed state for 20 seconds, and then allowed to recover for 20 seconds, with the upper plate moving at 3 ยตm/s. Force and spheroid deformation were recorded and processed in MATLAB using an elastic-sphere compression model with a finite-element-based large-deformation correction to calculate effective Young’s modulus. MicroTester measurements showed that pulp-derived OBBs were the stiffest and gingiva-derived OBBs the softest. At day 3, Young’s modulus averaged 1.6 ยฑ 0.6 kPa for pulp OBBs and 0.8 ยฑ 0.5 kPa for gingiva OBBs, while the mixed and layered two-cell groups were approximately 1 kPa. At day 7, pulp OBB stiffness increased to 3.7 ยฑ 1.7 kPa, approximately 4.6 times that of gingiva OBBs, while mixed and layered OBBs retained intermediate stiffness. These measurements helped establish how cell source, cellular arrangement, and maturation influence the mechanical properties of OBBs being developed as cellular components for oral-tissue bioinks.
AUTHORS

Lidiia R. Grinchevskaia, Anna V. Kardosh, Vitalia R. Izhbulatova, Nastasia V. Kosheleva, Daria S. Kuznetsova, Artem M. Mozherov, Yuri M. Efremov, Alexey L. Fayzullin, Polina Y. Bikmulina, Svetlana L. Kotova, Anastasia I. Shpichka, Oleg O. Pavlov, Boris P. Yakimov, Peter S. Timashev.

PUBLICATION DETAILS
JOURNAL

International Journal of Bioprinting

YEAR

2026

INSTITUTIONS

I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

COUNTRIES

Russia

INSTRUMENT USED

MicroTester

TESTING METHODS

Compression TestingMicro-Mechanical Testing

RESEARCH APPLICATIONS

3D Bioprinting & Bioink Materials TestingDental & Oral Tissue BiomechanicsMicrotissue and Spheroid MechanicsOrganoid and Tissue Mimetic Systems

Related Publications:

Instrument Used:
Year:
Testing Method:
Research Application:
Country:

Contact Sales

Product of Interest:
CellScale hexagon shapes