Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27898014›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2016

Future Prospects for Scaffolding Methods and Biomaterials in Skin Tissue Engineering: A Review.

Atul A Chaudhari, Komal Vig, Dieudonné Radé Baganizi, Rajnish Sahu, Saurabh Dixit, Vida Dennis, Shree Ram Singh, Shreekumar R Pillai

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07347106 (A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial of Miro3D Wound Matrix With Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care Alone in Treating Acute Soft Tissue Wounds and Chronic Pressure Ulcerations), which is not on this map. Cited by 189 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
189citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07347106 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial of Miro3D Wound Matrix With Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care Alone in Treating Acute Soft Tissue Wounds and Chronic Pressure Ulcerations

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2025 to 2028Enrolled70ConditionsWoundArmsStandard of Care Treatment or Standard of Care Treatment plus Miro3D Wound Matrix
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

189 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Injectable Dendritic Hydrogels Curable by High-Energy Visible Light for Cell Delivery in Bone Regeneration.Chemistry of materials : a publication of the American Chemical Society · 2025
    Article

129 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Atul A ChaudhariCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. atulvet@gmail.com.
Komal VigCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. komalvig@alasu.edu.
Dieudonné Radé BaganiziCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. drbaganizi@gmail.com.
Rajnish SahuCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. sahu.rajnish@gmail.com.
Saurabh DixitCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. sdixit@alasu.edu.
Vida DennisCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. vdennis@alasu.edu.
Shree Ram SinghCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. ssingh@alasu.edu.
Shreekumar R PillaiCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA. spillai@alasu.edu.

Funding

RISE Option II:NIGMS-Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) Program at ASUR25GM106995 · NIGMS · ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DENNIS, VIDA A · 2013 to 2023
$3.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM106995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over centuries, the field of regenerative skin tissue engineering has had several advancements to facilitate faster wound healing and thereby restoration of skin. Skin tissue regeneration is mainly based on the use of suitable scaffold matrices. There are several scaffold types, such as porous, fibrous, microsphere, hydrogel, composite and acellular, etc., with discrete advantages and disadvantages. These scaffolds are either made up of highly biocompatible natural biomaterials, such as collagen, chitosan, etc., or synthetic materials, such as polycaprolactone (PCL), and poly-ethylene-glycol (PEG), etc. Composite scaffolds, which are a combination of natural or synthetic biomaterials, are highly biocompatible with improved tensile strength for effective skin tissue regeneration. Appropriate knowledge of the properties, advantages and disadvantages of various biomaterials and scaffolds will accelerate the production of suitable scaffolds for skin tissue regeneration applications. At the same time, emphasis on some of the leading challenges in the field of skin tissue engineering, such as cell interaction with scaffolds, faster cellular proliferation/differentiation, and vascularization of engineered tissues, is inevitable. In this review, we discuss various types of scaffolding approaches and biomaterials used in the field of skin tissue engineering and more importantly their future prospects in skin tissue regeneration efforts.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsPolymersSkinTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsWound HealingBiocompatible MaterialsPolymersbiomaterialsnaturalpolymerscaffoldsskinsynthetictissue engineeringwound healing

Identifiers

PMID27898014
PMCPMC5187774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.