Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31540457›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2019

Recent Trends in Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Bioinks for 3D Printing: An Updated Review.

Kevin Dzobo, Keolebogile Shirley Caroline M Motaung, Adetola Adesida

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 218 citations in OpenAlex.

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

41 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin DzoboInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), Cape Town Component, Wernher and Beit Building (South), UCT Medical Campus, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa. kdzobosnr@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1334-4665
Keolebogile Shirley Caroline M MotaungDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 30655, South Africa. smotaung@gmail.com.
Adetola AdesidaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1, Canada. adesida@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1798-6251
Tshwane University of Technology · ZAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The promise of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering is founded on the ability to regenerate diseased or damaged tissues and organs into functional tissues and organs or the creation of new tissues and organs altogether. In theory, damaged and diseased tissues and organs can be regenerated or created using different configurations and combinations of extracellular matrix (ECM), cells, and inductive biomolecules. Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering can allow the improvement of patients' quality of life through availing novel treatment options. The coupling of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering with 3D printing, big data, and computational algorithms is revolutionizing the treatment of patients in a huge way. 3D bioprinting allows the proper placement of cells and ECMs, allowing the recapitulation of native microenvironments of tissues and organs. 3D bioprinting utilizes different bioinks made up of different formulations of ECM/biomaterials, biomolecules, and even cells. The choice of the bioink used during 3D bioprinting is very important as properties such as printability, compatibility, and physical strength influence the final construct printed. The extracellular matrix (ECM) provides both physical and mechanical microenvironment needed by cells to survive and proliferate. Decellularized ECM bioink contains biochemical cues from the original native ECM and also the right proportions of ECM proteins. Different techniques and characterization methods are used to derive bioinks from several tissues and organs and to evaluate their quality. This review discusses the uses of decellularized ECM bioinks and argues that they represent the most biomimetic bioinks available. In addition, we briefly discuss some polymer-based bioinks utilized in 3D bioprinting.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBioprintingExtracellular MatrixHumansPolymersPrinting, Three-DimensionalRegenerative MedicineTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsPolymers3D bioprintingbiofabricationbioinkdecellularized extracellular matrixregenerative medicinescaffoldstissue engineeringtransplantation

Identifiers

PMID31540457
PMCPMC6788195
OpenAlexW2974347642

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.