Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35745911›Full record

ReviewPolymers2022

Laser Sintering Approaches for Bone Tissue Engineering.

Jeremy N DiNoro, Naomi C Paxton, Jacob Skewes, Zhilian Yue, Philip M Lewis, Robert G Thompson, Stephen Beirne, Maria A Woodruff, Gordon G Wallace

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Closing the Loop: High-Precision 3D Photofabrication in Living Tissues.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Jeremy N DiNoroARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Innovation Campus, Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, AIIM Facility, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6899-3684
Naomi C PaxtonAustralian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre in Additive Biomanufacturing, Brisbane, QLD 4059, Australia.
Jacob SkewesCentre for Biomedical Technologies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4059, Australia.
Zhilian YueARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Innovation Campus, Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, AIIM Facility, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Philip M LewisDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Robert G ThompsonAnatomics Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, VIC 3165, Australia.
Stephen BeirneARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Innovation Campus, Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, AIIM Facility, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Maria A WoodruffAustralian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre in Additive Biomanufacturing, Brisbane, QLD 4059, Australia.
Gordon G WallaceARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Innovation Campus, Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, AIIM Facility, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0381-7273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) techniques into the medical space has revolutionised tissue engineering. Depending upon the tissue type, specific AM approaches are capable of closely matching the physical and biological tissue attributes, to guide tissue regeneration. For hard tissue such as bone, powder bed fusion (PBF) techniques have significant potential, as they are capable of fabricating materials that can match the mechanical requirements necessary to maintain bone functionality and support regeneration. This review focuses on the PBF techniques that utilize laser sintering for creating scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (BTE) applications. Optimal scaffold requirements are explained, ranging from material biocompatibility and bioactivity, to generating specific architectures to recapitulate the porosity, interconnectivity, and mechanical properties of native human bone. The main objective of the review is to outline the most common materials processed using PBF in the context of BTE; initially outlining the most common polymers, including polyamide, polycaprolactone, polyethylene, and polyetheretherketone. Subsequent sections investigate the use of metals and ceramics in similar systems for BTE applications. The last section explores how composite materials can be used. Within each material section, the benefits and shortcomings are outlined, including their mechanical and biological performance, as well as associated printing parameters. The framework provided can be applied to the development of new, novel materials or laser-based approaches to ultimately generate bone tissue analogues or for guiding bone regeneration.

Indexed as

3D printingadditive manufacturingbone regenerationimplantspolymerssintering

Identifiers

PMID35745911
PMCPMC9229946

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.