ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Donors for nerve transplantation in craniofacial soft tissue injuries.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From fracture-related injury to surgically modifiable risk: a trauma-focused bibliometric analysis of craniofacial nerve injuries.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Facial Clefts and the Trigeminal Nerve: A Narrative Review of the Literature and Clinical Considerations in the Era of Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Advances in 3D printing combined with tissue engineering for nerve regeneration and repair.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Sural nerve grafts in subacute facial nerve injuries: a report of two cases.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Functional hydrogels for the repair and regeneration of tissue defects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neural tissue is an important soft tissue; for instance, craniofacial nerves govern several aspects of human behavior, including the expression of speech, emotion transmission, sensation, and motor function. Therefore, nerve repair to promote functional recovery after craniofacial soft tissue injuries is indispensable. However, the repair and regeneration of craniofacial nerves are challenging due to their intricate anatomical and physiological characteristics. Currently, nerve transplantation is an irreplaceable treatment for segmental nerve defects. With the development of emerging technologies, transplantation donors have become more diverse. The present article reviews the traditional and emerging alternative materials aimed at advancing cutting-edge research on craniofacial nerve repair and facilitating the transition from the laboratory to the clinic. It also provides a reference for donor selection for nerve repair after clinical craniofacial soft tissue injuries. We found that autografts are still widely accepted as the first options for segmental nerve defects. However, allogeneic composite functional units have a strong advantage for nerve transplantation for nerve defects accompanied by several tissue damages or loss. As an alternative to autografts, decellularized tissue has attracted increasing attention because of its low immunogenicity. Nerve conduits have been developed from traditional autologous tissue to composite conduits based on various synthetic materials, with developments in tissue engineering technology. Nerve conduits have great potential to replace traditional donors because their structures are more consistent with the physiological microenvironment and show self-regulation performance with improvements in 3D technology. New materials, such as hydrogels and nanomaterials, have attracted increasing attention in the biomedical field. Their biocompatibility and stimuli-responsiveness have been gradually explored by researchers in the regeneration and regulation of neural networks.
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.