Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32842918›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part A2020

Three-Dimensional Printing for Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering.

Chen Shen, Lukasz Witek, Roberto L Flores, Nick Tovar, Andrea Torroni, Paulo G Coelho, F Kurtis Kasper, Mark Wong, Simon Young

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chen ShenHansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Lukasz WitekDepartment of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA.
Roberto L FloresHansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Nick TovarDepartment of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA.
Andrea TorroniHansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Paulo G CoelhoHansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
F Kurtis KasperDepartment of Orthodontics and School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Mark WongDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Simon YoungDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
New York University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The basic concepts from the fields of biology and engineering are integrated into tissue engineering to develop constructs for the repair of damaged and/or absent tissues, respectively. The field has grown substantially over the past two decades, with particular interest in bone tissue engineering (BTE). Clinically, there are circumstances in which the quantity of bone that is necessary to restore form and function either exceeds the patient's healing capacity or bone's intrinsic regenerative capabilities. Vascularized osseous or osteocutaneous free flaps are the standard of care with autologous bone remaining the gold standard, but is commonly associated with donor site morbidity, graft resorption, increased operating time, and cost. Regardless of the size of a craniofacial defect, from trauma, pathology, and osteonecrosis, surgeons and engineers involved with reconstruction need to consider the complex three-dimensional (3D) geometry of the defect and its relationship to local structures. Three-dimensional printing has garnered significant attention and presents opportunities to use craniofacial BTE as a technology that offers a personalized approach to bony reconstruction. Clinicians and engineers are able to work together to produce patient-specific space-maintaining scaffolds tailored to site-specific defects, which are osteogenic, osseoconductive, osseoinductive, encourage angiogenesis/vasculogenesis, and mechanically stable upon implantation to prevent immediate failure. In this work, we review biological and engineering principles important in applying 3D printing technology to BTE for craniofacial reconstruction as well as present recent translational advancements in 3D printed bioactive ceramic scaffold technology.

Indexed as

Printing, Three-DimensionalTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBone RegenerationFacial BonesHumans3D printingbiomaterialsbone tissue engineeringscaffold

Identifiers

PMID32842918
PMCPMC7759279
OpenAlexW3080188846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.