Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36121526›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2022

Systematic review on the application of 3D-bioprinting technology in orthoregeneration: current achievements and open challenges.

Rachel L Pan, Kari Martyniak, Makan Karimzadeh, David G Gelikman, Jonathan DeVries, Kelly Sutter, Melanie Coathup, Mehdi Razavi, Rajendra Sawh-Martinez, Thomas J Kean

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel L PanCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7246-4718
Kari MartyniakBiionix Cluster, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32827, USA.
Makan KarimzadehBiionix Cluster, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32827, USA.
David G GelikmanCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Jonathan DeVriesCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Kelly SutterCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Melanie CoathupBiionix Cluster, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32827, USA.
Mehdi RazaviBiionix Cluster, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32827, USA.
Rajendra Sawh-MartinezCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Thomas J KeanBiionix Cluster, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32827, USA. Thomas.kean@ucf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6844-3404
University of Central Florida · US

Funding

Orthoregeneration Network Foundation 21-225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundJoint degeneration and large or complex bone defects are a significant source of morbidity and diminished quality of life worldwide. There is an unmet need for a functional implant with near-native biomechanical properties. The potential for their generation using 3D bioprinting (3DBP)-based tissue engineering methods was assessed. We systematically reviewed the current state of 3DBP in orthoregeneration.

methodsThis review was performed using PubMed and Web of Science. Primary research articles reporting 3DBP of cartilage, bone, vasculature, and their osteochondral and vascular bone composites were considered. Full text English articles were analyzed.

resultsOver 1300 studies were retrieved, after removing duplicates, 1046 studies remained. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 114 articles were analyzed fully. Bioink material types and combinations were tallied. Cell types and testing methods were also analyzed. Nearly all papers determined the effect of 3DBP on cell survival. Bioink material physical characterization using gelation and rheology, and construct biomechanics were performed. In vitro testing methods assessed biochemistry, markers of extracellular matrix production and/or cell differentiation into respective lineages. In vivo proof-of-concept studies included full-thickness bone and joint defects as well as subcutaneous implantation in rodents followed by histological and µCT analyses to demonstrate implant growth and integration into surrounding native tissues.

conclusionsDespite its relative infancy, 3DBP is making an impact in joint and bone engineering. Several groups have demonstrated preclinical efficacy of mechanically robust constructs which integrate into articular joint defects in small animals. However, notable obstacles remain. Notably, researchers encountered pitfalls in scaling up constructs and establishing implant function and viability in long term animal models. Further, to translate from the laboratory to the clinic, standardized quality control metrics such as construct stiffness and graft integration metrics should be established with investigator consensus. While there is much work to be done, 3DBP implants have great potential to treat degenerative joint diseases and provide benefit to patients globally.

Indexed as

3D bioprinted joint3D bioprinting orthoregenerationBioprinted boneBioprinted cartilageBioprinted graftBioprinted osteochondral implantBioprinted vascularized boneBioprinted vasculature

Identifiers

PMID36121526
PMCPMC9485345
OpenAlexW4296323278

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.