ReviewBiomolecules2021
Bioprinting Au Natural: The Biologics of Bioinks.
Review in Biomolecules, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nano-Based 3D Printed Scaffold for Bone Tissue Engineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Automated Covalent Microcontact Bioprinting of Lubricant-Infused Microarrays for Biological Assays.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- Genetic and bioactive functionalization of bioinks for 3D bioprinting.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2025Review
- Review
- 3D bioprinting of microorganisms: principles and applications.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2024Review
- Effective and new technologies in kidney tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- 3D Cell Models in Radiobiology: Improving the Predictive Value of In Vitro Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Bioinks of Natural Biomaterials for Printing Tissues.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Smart Bioinks for the Printing of Human Tissue Models.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Advanced 3D-Printing Bioinks for Articular Cartilage Repair.International journal of bioprinting · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of appropriate bioinks is a complex task, dependent on the mechanical and biochemical requirements of the final construct and the type of printer used for fabrication. The two most common tissue printers are micro-extrusion and digital light projection printers. Here we briefly discuss the required characteristics of a bioink for each of these printing processes. However, physical printing is only a short window in the lifespan of a printed construct-the system must support and facilitate cellular development after it is printed. To that end, we provide a broad overview of some of the biological molecules currently used as bioinks. Each molecule has advantages for specific tissues/cells, and potential disadvantages are discussed, along with examples of their current use in the field. Notably, it is stressed that active researchers are trending towards the use of composite bioinks. Utilizing the strengths from multiple materials is highlighted as a key component of bioink development.
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.