ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2019
The Role of In Vitro Immune Response Assessment for Biomaterials.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bio-OssFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- 3D-Printed Microfluidic-Based Cell Culture System With Analysis to Investigate Macrophage Activation.Electrophoresis · 2025Article
- Dual-functional titanium implants via polydopamine-mediated lithium and copper co-incorporation: synergistic enhancement of osseointegration and antibacterial efficacy.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Perfusion Bioreactor Conditioning of Small-diameter Plant-based Vascular Grafts.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2024Article
- Advancements in Materials for 3D-Printed Microneedle Arrays: Enhancing Performance and Biocompatibility.Micromachines · 2024Review
- Polymer-Drug Anti-Thrombogenic and Hemocompatible Coatings as Surface Modifications.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Biomaterials for Drug Delivery and Human Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- A Human Whole Blood Culture System Reveals Detailed Cytokine Release Profiles of Implant Materials.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Interactions of Cells and Biomaterials for Nerve Tissue Engineering: Polymers and Fabrication.Polymers · 2023Review
- Advances in Biodegradable Polymers and Biomaterials for Medical Applications-A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- PreclinicalFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Navigating regulatory pathways for translation of biologic cartilage repair products.Science translational medicine · 2022Review
- Macrophage activation in response to shape memory polymer foam-coated aneurysm occlusion devices.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2022Article
- Article
- Enhancement of Cholinesterase Inhibition ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effects of collagen membranes and bone substitute differ in periodontal ligament cell microtissues and monolayers.Journal of periodontology · 2022Article
- Early Immune Response in Foreign Body Reaction Is Implant/Material Specific.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Biocomplex Assembled from Antigen Peptide and Toll-like Receptor Agonist Improved the Immunity against Pancreatic AdenocarcinomaJournal of oncology · 2022Article
- Interactions Between Immunomodulatory Biomaterials and Immune Microenvironment: Cues for Immunomodulation Strategies in Tissue Repair.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.
Funding
Abstract
Grafts are required to restore tissue integrity and function. However, current gold standard autografting techniques yield limited harvest, with high rates of complication. In the search for viable substitutes, the number of biomaterials being developed and studied has increased rapidly. To date, low clinical uptake has accompanied inherently high failure rates, with immune rejection a specific and common end result. The objective of this review article was to evaluate published immune assays evaluating biomaterials, and to stress the value that incorporating immune assessment into evaluations carries. Immunogenicity assays have had three areas of focus: cell viability, maturation and activation, with the latter being the focus in the majority of the literature due to its relevance to functional outcomes. With recent studies suggesting poor correlation between current in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials, in vitro immune response assays may be more relevant and enhance ability in predicting acceptance prior to in vivo application. Uptake of in vitro immune response assessment will allow for substantial reductions in experimental time and resources, including unnecessary and unethical animal use, with a simultaneous decrease in inappropriate biomaterials reaching clinic. This improvement in bench to bedside safety is paramount to reduce patient harm.
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.