The intensive development of technologies related to human health in recent years has caused a real revolution. The transition from conventional medicine to personalized medicine, largely driven by bioprinting, is expected to have a significant positive impact on a patient’s quality of life. This article aims to conduct a systematic review of bioprinting’s potential impact on health-related quality of life. A literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases between 2019 and 2023. We have identified some of the most significant potential benefits of bioprinting to improve the patient’s quality of life: personalized part production; saving millions of lives; reducing rejection risks after transplantation; accelerating the process of skin tissue regeneration; homocellular tissue model generation; precise fabrication process with accurate specifications; and eliminating the need for organs donor, and thus reducing patient waiting time. In addition, these advances in bioprinting have the potential to greatly benefit cancer treatment and other research, offering medical solutions tailored to each individual patient that could increase the patient’s chance of survival and significantly improve their overall well-being. Although some of these advancements are still in the research stage, the encouraging results from scientific studies suggest that they are on the verge of being integrated into personalized patient treatment. The progress in bioprinting has the power to revolutionize medicine and healthcare, promising to have a profound impact on improving the quality of life and potentially transforming the field of medicine and healthcare.

The global development of technologies now enters areas related to human health, with a transition from conventional to personalized medicine that is based to a significant extent on (bio)printing. The goal of this article is to review some of the published scientific literature and to highlight the importance and potential benefits of using 3D (bio)printing techniques in contemporary personalized medicine and also to offer future perspectives in this research field. The article is prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases were used in the literature search. Six authors independently performed the search, study selection, and data extraction. This review focuses on 3D bio(printing) in personalized medicine and provides a classification of 3D bio(printing) benefits in several categories: overcoming the shortage of organs for transplantation, elimination of problems due to the difference between sexes in organ transplantation, reducing the cases of rejection of transplanted organs, enhancing the survival of patients with transplantation, drug research and development, elimination of genetic/congenital defects in tissues and organs, and surgery planning and medical training for young doctors. In particular, we highlight the benefits of each 3D bio(printing) applications included along with the associated scientific reports from recent literature. In addition, we present an overview of some of the challenges that need to be overcome in the applications of 3D bioprinting in personalized medicine. The reviewed articles lead to the conclusion that bioprinting may be adopted as a revolution in the development of personalized, medicine and it has a huge potential in the near future to become a gold standard in future healthcare in the world.

The widespread adoption of tattoos and permanent makeup across all social classes and age groups globally has led to an increase in reports of subsequent health problems. This article presents a systematic review aimed at investigating the potential health risks associated with body modifications (tattoos and permanent makeup), highlighting the need for further research and public education to bridge the gap in knowledge and ensure informed decision-making. A literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases for the period between 2014 and 2024. Several significant potential health risks associated with tattoos and permanent makeup were identified: disruption of the skin microbiome, inflammatory processes and infections, allergic reactions and oncological risks, toxicity of tattoo inks, insufficient hygiene, and inadequate aftercare. Despite the prevalence of tattoos, public awareness of the possible associated complications and health risks is low. There is a need for systematic identification and assessment of health and safety risks related to body modification services, as well as the introduction of guidelines to ensure that all necessary measures are taken to prevent health hazards for both clients and professionals performing these procedures.

Advances in pharmaceutical technology have positioned 3D printing and bioprinting as promising tools for developing personalized drug therapies. These innovations may redefine compounding practices by enabling precise, patient-specific drug formulations. Evaluating pharmacists’ readiness to adopt such technologies is therefore becoming increasingly important. Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate pharmacists’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers regarding the application of 3D printing and bioprinting technologies, as well as their perspectives on the regulation and implementation of these technologies in the context of personalized pharmacy. Materials and Methods: A custom-designed questionnaire was developed for the purposes of this pilot study, based on a review of the existing literature and informed by expert consultation to ensure conceptual relevance and clarity. The survey was conducted between September and December 2024. The data collection instrument comprises three main sections: (1) sociodemographic and professional characteristics, (2) knowledge regarding the applications of 3D printing and bioprinting in pharmacy, and (3) attitudes toward the regulatory framework and implementation of these technologies. Results: A total of 353 respondents participated, and 65.5% of them (n = 231) correctly distinguished between the concepts of “3D printing” and “bioprinting.” More than 25% (n = 88) were uncertain, and 8.5% (n = 30) were unable to differentiate between the two. Regarding the perceived benefits of personalized pharmacy, 83% (n = 293) of participants identified “the creation of personalized medications tailored to individual needs” as the main advantage, while 66% (n = 233) highlighted the “optimization of drug concentration to enhance therapeutic efficacy and minimize toxicity and adverse effects.” Approximately 60% (n = 210) of the pharmacists surveyed believed that the introduction of 3D-bioprinted pharmaceuticals would have a positive impact on the on-site preparation of customized drug formulations in community and hospital pharmacies. Lack of regulatory guidance and unresolved ethical concerns were identified as primary barriers. Notably, over 40% (n = 142) of respondents expressed concern that patients could be subjected to treatment approaches resembling “laboratory experimentation.” Nearly 90% (n = 317) of participants recognized the need for specialized training and expressed a willingness to engage in such educational initiatives. Conclusions: Three-dimensional printing and bioprinting technologies are considered cutting-edge instruments that may contribute to the advancement of pharmaceutical practice and industry, particularly in the field of personalized medicine. However, respondents’ views suggest that successful integration may require improved pharmacist awareness and targeted educational initiatives, along with the development and adaptation of appropriate regulatory frameworks to accommodate these novel technologies in drug design and compounding.