ReviewJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Scaffolds--The Ground for Regeneration: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Polymers in Tissue Engineering and Regeneration: Material-Cell Mechanotransduction, Biofabrication Strategies, and Clinical Translation.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Plant-Based Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: A Review.Polymers · 2025Review
- Fabrication and Characterization of Carbonate Apatite-Bovine Gelatin Scaffolds for Endodontic Regeneration: A Lyophilization-Based Approach.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in 3D Bioprinting of Porous Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: A Narrative and Critical Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- In vitro dose-dependent effects of matrix metalloproteinases on ECM hydrogel biodegradation.Acta biomaterialia · 2024Article
- Additive Manufacturing of Polymer/Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Regenerative Medicine: A Review.Polymers · 2023Review
- Scaffolds for Cartilage Tissue Engineering from a Blend of Polyethersulfone and Polyurethane Polymers.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Cellulose-Based Composites as Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Recent Advances.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Large three-dimensional cell constructs for tissue engineering.Science and technology of advanced materials · 2021Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to comprehensively review the various biomaterials used as scaffolds, rates of biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite hybrid scaffolds, and the role of controlled biodegradability in tissue engineering. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic search for systematic review was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (www.cochrane.org), Scopus (www.scopus.com) databases, and dental journals related to endodontics and pediatric dentistry to identify the research investigations associated with the degradation profiles, factors relating to degradation, rates of biodegradability and the role of controlled biodegradability of natural, artificial and composite scaffolds. A sample of 17 relevant studies and case reports were identified in our search of 100 using simple random sampling.
resultsNaturally derived scaffolds degrade at a much higher rate than artificial and composite scaffolds. The degradation profiles of composite scaffolds can be much better controlled than naturally derived scaffolds.
conclusionComposite scaffolds are more favorable as compared to natural or artificial scaffolds, as it has superior mechanical properties, minimal immune response, and a controlled rate of degradation and consequent tissue regeneration.
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.