ReviewJournal of dental research2014
In vivo bioreactors for mandibular reconstruction.
Review in Journal of dental research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- A case report of autogenous bone grafting using fibula regenerated from beta-tricalcium phosphate for a bone tumor: application of the in vivo bioreactor principle.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Pre-vascularized porous gelatin-coated β-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds for bone regeneration: an in vivo and in vitro investigation.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2025Article
- Towards Stem Cell Therapy for Critical-Sized Segmental Bone Defects: Current Trends and Challenges on the Path to Clinical Translation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Hydrogels for Oral Tissue Engineering: Challenges and Opportunities.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Mechanically Reinforced Super Bone Glue Makes a Leap in Hard Tissue Strong Adhesion and Augmented Bone Regeneration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Advances in In Vitro and In Vivo Bioreactor-Based Bone Generation for Craniofacial Tissue Engineering.BME frontiers · 2023Review
- 3D-Printing for Critical Sized Bone Defects: Current Concepts and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Hydrogel: A Potential Material for Bone Tissue Engineering Repairing the Segmental Mandibular Defect.Polymers · 2022Review
- A Poly-(ethylene glycol)-diacrylate 3D-Printed Micro-Bioreactor for Direct Cell Biological Implant-Testing on the Developing Chicken Chorioallantois Membrane.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Regenerative Approaches for the Treatment of Large Bone Defects.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2021Review
- Investigation of a Prevascularized Bone Graft for Large Defects in the Ovine Tibia.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2021Article
- Osteoinductive 3D printed scaffold healed 5 cm segmental bone defects in the ovine metatarsus.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Tissue engineering applications in otolaryngology-The state of translation.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Review
- Subcutaneous priming of protein-functionalized chitosan scaffolds improves function following spinal cord injury.Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications · 2020Article
- Reconstruction of Large Skeletal Defects: Current Clinical Therapeutic Strategies and Future Directions Using 3D Printing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Reconstruction of segmental mandibular defects: Current procedures and perspectives.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2019Review
- Quantifying Vascular Changes Surrounding Bone Regeneration in a Porcine Mandibular Defect Using Computed Tomography.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2019Article
- Biomaterials-aided mandibular reconstruction using in vivo bioreactors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Large Animal Models of an In Vivo Bioreactor for Engineering Vascularized Bone.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large mandibular defects are difficult to reconstruct with good functional and aesthetic outcomes because of the complex geometry of craniofacial bone. While the current gold standard is free tissue flap transfer, this treatment is limited in fidelity by the shape of the harvested tissue and can result in significant donor site morbidity. To address these problems, in vivo bioreactors have been explored as an approach to generate autologous prefabricated tissue flaps. These bioreactors are implanted in an ectopic site in the body, where ossified tissue grows into the bioreactor in predefined geometries and local vessels are recruited to vascularize the developing construct. The prefabricated flap can then be harvested with vessels and transferred to a mandibular defect for optimal reconstruction. The objective of this review article is to introduce the concept of the in vivo bioreactor, describe important preclinical models in the field, summarize the human cases that have been reported through this strategy, and offer future directions for this exciting approach.
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.