There is an increasing need of human organs for transplantation, of alternatives to animal experimentation, and of better in vitro tissue models for drug testing. All these needs create unique opportunities for the development of novel and powerful tissue engineering methods, among which the 3D bioprinting is one of the most promising. However, after decades of incubation, ingenuous efforts, early success and much anticipation, biomaterial-dependent 3D bioprinting, although shows steady progress, is slow to deliver the expected clinical results. For this reason, alternative ‘scaffold-free’ 3D bioprinting methods are developing in parallel at an accelerated pace. In this opinion paper we discuss comparatively the two approaches, with specific examples drawn from the cardiovascular field. Moving the emphasis away from competition, we show that the two platforms have similar goals but evolve in complementary technological niches. We conclude that the biomaterial-dependent bioprinting is better suited for tasks requiring faster, larger, anatomically-true, cell-homogenous and matrix-rich constructs, while the scaffold-free biofabrication is more adequate for cell-heterogeneous, matrix-poor, complex and smaller constructs, but requiring longer preparation time
