ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2015
3D Printing of Scaffolds for Tissue Regeneration Applications.
Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 288 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
288 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of traditional band and loop space maintainer vs 3D-printed space maintainer following the loss of primary teeth: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- The application of growth factors in bone tissue engineering delivery systems and collaborative innovation strategies.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Research hotspots and emerging trends of 3D printing in bone defects: a bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science core collection from 2006 to March 2026.Cell and tissue banking · 2026Article
- Applications and recent advances of 3D printing technology in bone diseases: A bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Toward Zero-Support Design for Irregular Manifold Manufacturing with Composite Materials Based on Layered Adhesion Equalization.3D printing and additive manufacturing · 2026Article
- Smart Bioinks for 4D Bioprinting: Requirements, Design, and Applications.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Bioprinting the Craniofacial Region: A New Era in Regenerative Medicine and Dentistry.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Cell-Friendly Indirect 3D Printing Strategy for Scaffold Fabrication.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2026Article
- From bone replacement to regeneration. A biomaterials started journey.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Data-driven multiscale design of composite biomaterials: Integrating experiments, imaging, and computational modeling for biomedical engineering.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Innovative prospects in 3D printed bio-scaffolds for osteochondral tissue engineering: A systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
- Phototunable Gelatin-Based Hydrogels as Cell Scaffolds for Modulating Cell Adhesion on Hydrogel Surfaces.ACS applied bio materials · 2026Article
- Advances in 3D Bioprinting: Materials, Processes, and Emerging Applications.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Recent Trends in the Development and Clinical Translation of Polymer-based Targeted Therapeutic Nanoparticle.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Synergistic integration of exosomes and natural compounds in 3D-printed bioscaffolds: Revolutionizing diabetic wound healing through multifunctional therapeutic platforms.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Brick by Brick the Wall Is Being Built: Particle-Based Scaffolds for Regenerative Medicine.Polymers · 2025Review
- Integrated 3D microstructured digital microfluidic platform for advanced 3D cell culture.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Article
- Structured engineering of self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS)International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Review
- Biodegradable graphene nanocomposites as functional biomaterials: a review of their role in controlled drug delivery and tissue engineering.RSC advances · 2025Review
- Navigating Cancer Treatment: A Journey from 2D to 3D Cancer Models and Nanoscale Therapies.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2025Review
228 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
The current need for organ and tissue replacement, repair, and regeneration for patients is continually growing such that supply is not meeting demand primarily due to a paucity of donors as well as biocompatibility issues leading to immune rejection of the transplant. In order to overcome these drawbacks, scientists have investigated the use of scaffolds as an alternative to transplantation. These scaffolds are designed to mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) by providing structural support as well as promoting attachment, proliferation, and differentiation with the ultimate goal of yielding functional tissues or organs. Initial attempts at developing scaffolds were problematic and subsequently inspired an interest in 3D printing as a mode for generating scaffolds. Utilizing three-dimensional printing (3DP) technologies, ECM-like scaffolds can be produced with a high degree of complexity, where fine details can be included at a micrometer level. In this Review, the criteria for printing viable and functional scaffolds, scaffolding materials, and 3DP technologies used to print scaffolds for tissue engineering are discussed. Creating biofunctional scaffolds could potentially help to meet the demand by patients for tissues and organs without having to wait or rely on donors for transplantation.
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.