ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2017
Reconstruction of Craniomaxillofacial Bone Defects Using Tissue-Engineering Strategies with Injectable and Non-Injectable Scaffolds.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metal-Substituted Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles as Antimicrobial and Osteogenic Biomaterials for Hard-Tissue Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development of bioactive SF/HAp/ZnO scaffolds incorporating succinic acid with potential bone regeneration capabilities.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Low Expression of Selenoprotein S Promotes Osteogenic Differentiation in Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stromal Cells.Biological trace element research · 2025Article
- The effects of local and systemic metronidazole on bone healing in mandibular defects: a rat model.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Molybdenum facilitates PDLSC-based bone regeneration through the JAK/STAT3 signaling pathway.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Applications and Regenerative Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- CA1 Modulates the Osteogenic Differentiation of Dental Follicle Stem Cells by Activating the BMP Signaling Pathway In Vitro.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2024Article
- Role of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Influence of physicochemical characteristics of calcium phosphate-based biomaterials in cranio-maxillofacial bone regeneration. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of preclinical models.Materials today. Bio · 2024Article
- 3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Review
- In Vivo Evaluation of Collagen and Chitosan Scaffold, Associated or Not with Stem Cells, in Bone Repair.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Functional microspheres for tissue regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2023Review
- Application of Silk-Fibroin-Based Hydrogels in Tissue Engineering.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Biomedical applications of three-dimensional bioprinted craniofacial tissue engineering.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- Reducing relapse and accelerating osteogenesis in rapid maxillary expansion using an injectable mesoporous bioactive glass/fibrin glue composite hydrogel.Bioactive materials · 2022Article
- Achievements in Mesoporous Bioactive Glasses for Biomedical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Article
- Effect of Locally Administered Denosumab on Bone Graft Healing in Rabbit Critical-Size Calvarial Defects.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Oxygen generating scaffolds regenerate critical size bone defects.Bioactive materials · 2022Article
- Synthetic materials in craniofacial regenerative medicine: A comprehensive overview.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Engineering craniofacial bone tissues is challenging due to their complex structures. Current standard autografts and allografts have many drawbacks for craniofacial bone tissue reconstruction; including donor site morbidity and the ability to reinstate the aesthetic characteristics of the host tissue. To overcome these problems; tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies have been developed as a potential way to reconstruct damaged bone tissue. Different types of new biomaterials; including natural polymers; synthetic polymers and bioceramics; have emerged to treat these damaged craniofacial bone tissues in the form of injectable and non-injectable scaffolds; which are examined in this review. Injectable scaffolds can be considered a better approach to craniofacial tissue engineering as they can be inserted with minimally invasive surgery; thus protecting the aesthetic characteristics. In this review; we also focus on recent research innovations with different types of stem-cell sources harvested from oral tissue and growth factors used to develop craniofacial bone tissue-engineering strategies.
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.