ReviewMicromachines2019
In Vivo Tracking of Tissue Engineered Constructs.
Review in Micromachines, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Reproducible MRI-Based Pipeline for Longitudinal Tracking of Laser-Assisted Bioprinted Cells in Three-Dimensional Constructs.NMR in biomedicine · 2026Article
- Material Composition and Implantation Site Affect in vivo Device Degradation Rate.Research square · 2026Article
- The cutting-edge advancements in biomaterials under the guidance of intelligence and bionics.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Review
- Personalized and genetically engineered animal models for next-generation surgical implant validation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Converging Architectures: Precision Biomanufacturing and Soft Robotics Rewiring Tissue Engineering.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Image-Guided Cardiac Regeneration via a 3D Bioprinted Vascular Patch with Built-in CT Visibility.Chemical engineering journal (Lausanne, Switzerland : 1996) · 2025Article
- Biodegradable Polyesters: Approaches to Increase Degradation Rates for Biomedical Applications.ACS macro letters · 2025Review
- Material Composition and Implantation Site Affect in vivo Device Degradation Rate.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Leveraging 3D Bioprinting and Photon-Counting Computed Tomography to Enable Noninvasive Quantitative Tracking of Multifunctional Tissue Engineered Constructs.Advanced healthcare materials · 2023Article
- Incorporating Tantalum Oxide Nanoparticles into Implantable Polymeric Biomedical Devices for Radiological Monitoring.Advanced healthcare materials · 2023Article
- 3D Bioprinting of an Endothelialized Liver Lobule-like Construct as a Tumor-Scale Drug Screening Platform.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Incorporating Radiopacity into Implantable Polymeric Biomedical Devices for Clinical Radiological Monitoring.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Low-Cost In Vivo Full-Range Optical Coherence Tomography Using a Voice Coil Motor.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Advocating Electrically Conductive Scaffolds with Low Immunogenicity for Biomedical Applications: A Review.Polymers · 2021Review
- Spatio-temporal characterization of fracture healing patterns and assessment of biomaterials by time-lapsed in vivo micro-computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Design Considerations to Facilitate Clinical Radiological Evaluation of Implantable Biomedical Structures.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2021Article
- Engineering Human Cardiac Muscle Patch Constructs for Prevention of Post-infarction LV Remodeling.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Long circulating tracer tailored for magnetic particle imaging.Nanotheranostics · 2021Article
- Challenges and opportunities for small volumes delivery into the skin.Biomicrofluidics · 2021Article
- Radiopaque scaffolds based on electrospun iodixanol/polycaprolactone fibrous composites.Materialia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To date, the fields of biomaterials science and tissue engineering have shown great promise in creating bioartificial tissues and organs for use in a variety of regenerative medicine applications. With the emergence of new technologies such as additive biomanufacturing and 3D bioprinting, increasingly complex tissue constructs are being fabricated to fulfill the desired patient-specific requirements. Fundamental to the further advancement of this field is the design and development of imaging modalities that can enable visualization of the bioengineered constructs following implantation, at adequate spatial and temporal resolution and high penetration depths. These in vivo tracking techniques should introduce minimum toxicity, disruption, and destruction to treated tissues, while generating clinically relevant signal-to-noise ratios. This article reviews the imaging techniques that are currently being adopted in both research and clinical studies to track tissue engineering scaffolds in vivo, with special attention to 3D bioprinted tissue constructs.
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.