Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34141834›Full record

ReviewRegenerative therapy2021

Three dimensional printed nanostructure biomaterials for bone tissue engineering.

Tesfa Marew, Gebremariam Birhanu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regenerative therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Autonomous Implants.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Advances in Biomimetic Scaffolds for Hard Tissue Surgery.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tesfa MarewDepartment of Pharmaceutics & Social Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gebremariam BirhanuDepartment of Pharmaceutics & Social Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The suffering from organ dysfunction due to damaged or diseased tissue/bone has been globally on the rise. Current treatment strategies for non-union bone defects include: the use of autografts, allografts, synthetic grafts and free vascularized fibular grafts. Bone tissue engineering has emerged as an alternative for fracture repair to satisfy the current unmet need of bone grafts and to alleviate the problems associated with autografts and allografts. The technology offers the possibility to induce new functional bone regeneration using synergistic combination of functional biomaterials (scaffolds), cells, and growth factors. Bone scaffolds are typically made of porous biodegradable materials that provide the mechanical support during repair and regeneration of damaged or diseased bone. Significant progress has been made towards scaffold materials for structural support, desired osteogenesis and angiogenesis abilities. Thanks for innovative scaffolds fabrication technologies, bioresorbable scaffolds with controlled porosity and tailored properties are possible today. Despite the presence of different bone scaffold fabrication methods, pore size, shape and interconnectivity have not yet been fully controlled in most of the methods. Moreover, scaffolds with tailored porosity for specific defects are still difficult to manufacture. Nevertheless, such scaffolds can be designed and fabricated using three dimensional (3D) printing approaches. 3D printing technology, as an advanced tissue scaffold fabrication method, offers the opportunity to produce complex geometries with distinct advantages. The technology has been used for the production of various types of bodily constructs such as blood vessels, vascular networks, bones, cartilages, exoskeletons, eyeglasses, cell cultures, tissues, organs and novel drug delivery devices. This review focuses on 3D printed scaffolds and their application in bone repair and regeneration. In addition, different classes of biomaterials commonly employed for the fabrication of 3D nano scaffolds for bone tissue engineering application so far are briefly discussed.

Indexed as

BiomaterialsBone tissue engineeringNanofiber scaffoldsNanohydroxyapititeThree dimensional printing

Identifiers

PMID34141834
PMCPMC8178073
OpenAlexW3170451199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.