ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2014
Automating the processing steps for obtaining bone tissue-engineered substitutes: from imaging tools to bioreactors.
Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated evaluation of biomechanical and biological properties of the biomimetic structural bone scaffold: Biomechanics, simulation analysis, and osteogenesis.Materials today. Bio · 2024Article
- Biomimetic Mineralization on 3D Printed PLA Scaffolds: On the Response of Human Primary Osteoblasts Spheroids and In Vivo Implantation.Polymers · 2020Article
- Engineering in-vitro stem cell-based vascularized bone models for drug screening and predictive toxicology.Stem cell research & therapy · 2018Review
- Beta-tricalcium phosphate granules improve osteogenesis in vitro and establish innovative osteo-regenerators for bone tissue engineering in vivo.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Biofabricated constructs as tissue models: a short review.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone diseases and injuries are highly incapacitating and result in a high demand for tissue substitutes with specific biomechanical and structural features. Tissue engineering has already proven to be effective in regenerating bone tissue, but has not yet been able to become an economically viable solution due to the complexity of the tissue, which is very difficult to be replicated, eventually requiring the utilization of highly labor-intensive processes. Process automation is seen as the solution for mass production of cellularized bone tissue substitutes at an affordable cost by being able to reduce human intervention as well as reducing product variability. The combination of tools such as medical imaging, computer-aided fabrication, and bioreactor technologies, which are currently used in tissue engineering, shows the potential to generate automated production ecosystems, which will, in turn, enable the generation of commercially available products with widespread clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.