ReviewPharmaceutics2021
Osteochondral Tissue Engineering: The Potential of Electrospinning and Additive Manufacturing.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels with mesenchymal stem cells: A versatile approach for bone tissue engineering.Histology and histopathology · 2026Review
- Progress and challenges of tantalum-containing biomaterials in regenerative medicine applications.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- Mechanical stretch loading of BMSCs-PLCL composite scaffolds accelerate diabetic wound healing by protecting endothelial cells and promoting angiogenesis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2026Article
- Developmentally Inspired, Mechanical-Metabolic Dual Gradient Osteochondral Constructs Bridging Regeneration and Therapeutic Screening.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Jumping Dot Sign: A New Radiological Sign Predicting Inferior Clinical Outcome and Higher Cyst Recurrence Following Bone Marrow Stimulation for Cystic Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing cancer research through 3D cell culture models.EXCLI journal · 2025Review
- Gradient scaffolds in bone-soft tissue interface engineering: Structural characteristics, fabrication techniques, and emerging trends.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Review
- Biomimetic multizonal scaffolds for the reconstruction of zonal articular cartilage in chondral and osteochondral defects.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Drug-Loaded Bioscaffolds for Osteochondral Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- 3D printed osteochondral scaffolds: design strategies, present applications and future perspectives.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- A novel allogeneic acellular matrix scaffold for porcine cartilage regeneration.BMC biotechnology · 2023Article
- Electrosprayed Particles Loaded with Kartogenin as a Potential Osteochondral Repair Implant.Polymers · 2023Article
- Integrated gradient tissue-engineered osteochondral scaffolds: Challenges, current efforts and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2023Review
- Electrospinning of Potential Medical Devices (Wound Dressings, Tissue Engineering Scaffolds, Face Masks) and Their Regulatory Approach.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- 3D-printed gradient scaffolds for osteochondral defects: Current status and perspectives.International journal of bioprinting · 2023Review
- Osteochondral regenerative engineering: challenges, state-of-the-art and translational perspectives.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Review
- Hybrid 3D Printed and Electrospun Multi-Scale Hierarchical Polycaprolactone Scaffolds to Induce Bone Differentiation.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Polyurethane/Liquid Crystal Microfibers with pDNA Polyplex Loadings for the Optimal Release and Promotion of HUVEC Proliferation.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Electrospun Materials for Biomedical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Joint-on-chip platforms: entering a new era of in vitro models for arthritis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2022Review
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
Abstract
The socioeconomic impact of osteochondral (OC) damage has been increasing steadily over time in the global population, and the promise of tissue engineering in generating biomimetic tissues replicating the physiological OC environment and architecture has been falling short of its projected potential. The most recent advances in OC tissue engineering are summarised in this work, with a focus on electrospun and 3D printed biomaterials combined with stem cells and biochemical stimuli, to identify what is causing this pitfall between the bench and the patients' bedside. Even though significant progress has been achieved in electrospinning, 3D-(bio)printing, and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technologies, it is still challenging to artificially emulate the OC interface and achieve complete regeneration of bone and cartilage tissues. Their intricate architecture and the need for tight spatiotemporal control of cellular and biochemical cues hinder the attainment of long-term functional integration of tissue-engineered constructs. Moreover, this complexity and the high variability in experimental conditions used in different studies undermine the scalability and reproducibility of prospective regenerative medicine solutions. It is clear that further development of standardised, integrative, and economically viable methods regarding scaffold production, cell selection, and additional biochemical and biomechanical stimulation is likely to be the key to accelerate the clinical translation and fill the gap in OC treatment.
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.