ArticleInternational journal of bioprinting2021
Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting: A Scientometric Analysis of Two Decades of Progress.
Article in International journal of bioprinting, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Technological Innovation to Clinical Translation: Progress and Challenges in 3D Bioprinting for the Development of Breast Cancer Bone Metastasis Models.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- A Quantitative Printability Framework for Programmable Assembly of Pre-Vascular Patterns via Laser-Induced Forward Transfer.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Bone Tissue Engineering: Enhancing the Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Regenerative Therapies.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Extrusion bioprinting: meeting the promise of human tissue biofabrication?Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2025Review
- Sacrificial Templating for Accelerating Clinical Translation of Engineered Organs.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- 3D bioprinted breast cancer model reveals stroma-mediated modulation of extracellular matrix and radiosensitivity.Bioactive materials · 2024Article
- Commercially available bioinks and state-of-the-art lab-made formulations for bone tissue engineering: A comprehensive review.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Advances in xenogeneic donor decellularized organs: A review on studies with sheep and porcine-derived heart valves.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Review
- Recent Developments in Bio-Ink Formulations Using Marine-Derived Biomaterials for Three-Dimensional (3D) Bioprinting.Marine drugs · 2024Review
- Structural and biological engineering of 3D hydrogels for wound healing.Bioactive materials · 2023Review
- Review
- 3D-Printed Tumor-on-Chip for the Culture of Colorectal Cancer Microspheres: Mass Transport Characterization and Anti-Cancer Drug Assays.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Computational simulation-based comparative analysis of standard 3D printing and conical nozzles for pneumatic and piston-driven bioprinting.International journal of bioprinting · 2023Article
- Relationship between shear-thinning rheological properties of bioinks and bioprinting parameters.International journal of bioprinting · 2023Article
- Research progress and challenges of bioprinting in wound dressing and healing: Bibliometrics-based analysis and perspectives.International journal of bioprinting · 2023Review
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix-Based Bioinks for Tendon Regeneration in Three-Dimensional Bioprinting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- In Vivo Application of Silica-Derived Inks for Bone Tissue Engineering: A 10-Year Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A Guide to Polysaccharide-Based Hydrogel Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Bioinks and Bioprinting Strategies for Skeletal Muscle Tissue Engineering.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2022Review
- Gelatin-methacryloyl hydrogels containing turnip mosaic virus for fabrication of nanostructured materials for tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scientometric analysis of 393 original papers published from January 2000 to June 2019 describes the development and use of bioinks for 3D bioprinting. The main trends for bioink applications and the primary considerations guiding the selection and design of current bioink components (i.e., cell types, hydrogels, and additives) were reviewed. The cost, availability, practicality, and basic biological considerations (e.g., cytocompatibility and cell attachment) are the most popular parameters guiding bioink use and development. Today, extrusion bioprinting is the most widely used bioprinting technique. The most reported use of bioinks is the generic characterization of bioink formulations or bioprinting technologies (32%), followed by cartilage bioprinting applications (16%). Similarly, the cell-type choice is mostly generic, as cells are typically used as models to assess bioink formulations or new bioprinting methodologies rather than to fabricate specific tissues. The cell-binding motif arginine-glycine-aspartate is the most common bioink additive. Many articles reported the development of advanced functional bioinks for specific biomedical applications; however, most bioinks remain the basic compositions that meet the simple criteria: Manufacturability and essential biological performance. Alginate and gelatin methacryloyl are the most popular hydrogels that meet these criteria. Our analysis suggests that present-day bioinks still represent a stage of emergence of bioprinting technology.
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.