Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35237582›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

3D Printing for Bone-Cartilage Interface Regeneration.

Jialian Xu, Jindou Ji, Juyang Jiao, Liangjun Zheng, Qimin Hong, Haozheng Tang, Shutao Zhang, Xinhua Qu, Bing Yue

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jialian XuDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Jindou JiThe First Clinical Medical College, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Juyang JiaoDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Liangjun ZhengDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Qimin HongDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Haozheng TangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Shutao ZhangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Xinhua QuDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Bing YueDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Renji Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the vasculature defects and/or the avascular nature of cartilage, as well as the complex gradients for bone-cartilage interface regeneration and the layered zonal architecture, self-repair of cartilage and subchondral bone is challenging. Currently, the primary osteochondral defect treatment strategies, including artificial joint replacement and autologous and allogeneic bone graft, are limited by their ability to simply repair, rather than induce regeneration of tissues. Meanwhile, over the past two decades, three-dimension (3D) printing technology has achieved admirable advancements in bone and cartilage reconstruction, providing a new strategy for restoring joint function. The advantages of 3D printing hybrid materials include rapid and accurate molding, as well as personalized therapy. However, certain challenges also exist. For instance, 3D printing technology for osteochondral reconstruction must simulate the histological structure of cartilage and subchondral bone, thus, it is necessary to determine the optimal bioink concentrations to maintain mechanical strength and cell viability, while also identifying biomaterials with dual bioactivities capable of simultaneously regenerating cartilage. The study showed that the regeneration of bone-cartilage interface is crucial for the repair of osteochondral defect. In this review, we focus on the significant progress and application of 3D printing technology for bone-cartilage interface regeneration, while also expounding the potential prospects for 3D printing technology and highlighting some of the most significant challenges currently facing this field.

Indexed as

3D printingbone repairchondral regenerationreconstructive implantregenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID35237582
PMCPMC8882993
OpenAlexW4212965341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.