ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2015
Functional augmentation of naturally-derived materials for tissue regeneration.
Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stem-Cell Niches in Health and Disease: Microenvironmental Determinants of Regeneration and Pathology.Cells · 2025Review
- Designing magnetic microcapsules for cultivation and differentiation of stem cell spheroids.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2024Article
- An ultrathin membrane mediates tissue-specific morphogenesis and barrier function in a human kidney chip.Science advances · 2024Article
- Histatin 1-modified SIS hydrogels enhance the sealing of peri-implant mucosa to prevent peri-implantitis.iScience · 2023Article
- Stem cell therapy combined with controlled release of growth factors for the treatment of sphincter dysfunction.Cell & bioscience · 2023Review
- Amniotic membrane attenuates heterotopic ossification following high-dose bone morphogenetic protein-2 treatment of segmental bone defects.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in the Application of Natural and Synthetic Polymer-Based Scaffolds in Musculoskeletal Regeneration.Polymers · 2022Review
- Application of neurotrophic and proangiogenic factors as therapy after peripheral nervous system injury.Neural regeneration research · 2022Review
- Kidney Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Enhanced the Vascularization and Maturation of Human Kidney Organoids.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- A comprehensive review on methods for promotion of mechanical features and biodegradation rate in amniotic membrane scaffolds.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Mast Cell-Biomaterial Interactions and Tissue Repair.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2021Review
- Bioactive Polymeric Materials for the Advancement of Regenerative Medicine.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Review
- 3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.Bioactive materials · 2018Review
- Application of laser scanning confocal microscopy in the soft tissue exquisite structure for 3D scan.International journal of burns and trauma · 2018Review
- Competitive Protein Binding Influences Heparin-Based Modulation of Spatial Growth Factor Delivery for Bone Regeneration.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue engineering strategies have utilized a wide spectrum of synthetic and naturally-derived scaffold materials. Synthetic scaffolds are better defined and offer the ability to precisely and reproducibly control their properties, while naturally-derived scaffolds typically have inherent biological and structural properties that may facilitate tissue growth and remodeling. More recently, efforts to design optimized biomaterial scaffolds have blurred the line between these two approaches. Naturally-derived scaffolds can be engineered through the manipulation of intrinsic properties of the pre-existing backbone (e.g., structural properties), as well as the addition of controllable functional components (e.g., biological properties). Chemical and physical processing techniques used to modify structural properties of synthetic scaffolds have been tailored and applied to naturally-derived materials. Such strategies include manipulation of mechanical properties, degradation, and porosity. Furthermore, biofunctional augmentation of natural scaffolds via incorporation of exogenous cells, proteins, peptides, or genes has been shown to enhance functional regeneration over endogenous response to the material itself. Moving forward, the regenerative mode of action of naturally-derived materials requires additional investigation. Elucidating such mechanisms will allow for the determination of critical design parameters to further enhance efficacy and capitalize on the full potential of naturally-derived scaffolds.
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.