Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33674908›Full record

ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2021

Advances in the Fabrication of Scaffold and 3D Printing of Biomimetic Bone Graft.

Bharti Bisht, Ashley Hope, Anubhab Mukherjee, Manash K Paul

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Alveolar Bone Regeneration: Smart Biomaterials and Physical Stimulation.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

Bharti BishtSchool of Thoracic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Ashley HopeMolecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Anubhab MukherjeeEsperer Onco Nutrition Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 247, Pearl Town, Aliabad Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500078, India. anubhabrsv@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3082-8269
Manash K PaulPulmonary Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. paul_cancerbiotech@yahoo.co.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9404-0024

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for bone grafts is tremendous, and that leads to the use of autograft, allograft, and bone graft substitutes. The biology of the bone is quite complex regarding cellular composition and architecture, hence developing a mineralized connective tissue graft is challenging. Traditionally used bone graft substitutes including metals, biomaterial coated metals and biodegradable scaffolds, suffer from persistent limitations. With the advent and rise of additive manufacturing technologies, the future of repairing bone trauma and defects seems to be optimistic. 3D printing has significant advantages, the foremost of all being faster manipulation of various biocompatible materials and live cells or tissues into the complex natural geometries necessary to mimic and stimulate cellular bone growth. The advent of new-generation bioprinters working with high-precision, micro-dispensing and direct digital manufacturing is aiding in ground-breaking organ and tissue printing, including the bone. The future bone replacement for patients holds excellent promise as scientists are moving closer to the generation of better 3D printed bio-bone grafts that will be safer and more effective. This review aims to summarize the advances in scaffold fabrication techniques, emphasizing 3D printing of biomimetic bone grafts.

Indexed as

Bone SubstitutesPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsBiomimeticsBone and BonesBone TransplantationHumansBone Substitutes3D printingBoneBone graftScaffoldTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID33674908

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.