Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29988731›Full record

ReviewBurns & trauma2018

Review of additive manufactured tissue engineering scaffolds: relationship between geometry and performance.

Andrew Gleadall, Dafydd Visscher, Jing Yang, Daniel Thomas, Joel Segal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Burns & trauma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Andrew Gleadall1Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2439-3120
Dafydd VisscherDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jing Yang3Faculty of Science, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK.
Daniel Thomas3Dynamic Systems, Heol Ty Gwyn Industrial Estate, Bridgend, CF34 0BQ UK.
Joel Segal5Advanced Manufacturing Technology Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Material extrusion additive manufacturing has rapidly grown in use for tissue engineering research since its adoption in the year 2000. It has enabled researchers to produce scaffolds with intricate porous geometries that were not feasible with traditional manufacturing processes. Researchers can control the structural geometry through a wide range of customisable printing parameters and design choices including material, print path, temperature, and many other process parameters. Currently, the impact of these choices is not fully understood. This review focuses on how the position and orientation of extruded filaments, which sometimes referred to as the print path, lay-down pattern, or simply "scaffold design", affect scaffold properties and biological performance. By analysing trends across multiple studies, new understanding was developed on how filament position affects mechanical properties. Biological performance was also found to be affected by filament position, but a lack of consensus between studies indicates a need for further research and understanding. In most research studies, scaffold design was dictated by capabilities of additive manufacturing software rather than free-form design of structural geometry optimised for biological requirements. There is scope for much greater application of engineering innovation to additive manufacture novel geometries. To achieve this, better understanding of biological requirements is needed to enable the effective specification of ideal scaffold geometries.

Indexed as

3D printingBioprintingFused deposition modellingRegenerative medicineScaffold architectureTissue engineering constructs

Identifiers

PMID29988731
PMCPMC6029169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.