ReviewBioengineering & translational medicine2023
Biomedical applications of three-dimensional bioprinted craniofacial tissue engineering.
Review in Bioengineering & translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Workflow in Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering: From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to Personalized Bioceramic Implants.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Coupled osteogenesis and angiogenesis on 3D-printed highly porous PCL/magnesium/laponite nanocomposite scaffold.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bone Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Using 3D-Printed Scaffolds with Graded Porosity and In Vitro Degradation.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Extrusion-Based Printing of Myoblast-Loaded Fibrin Microthreads to Induce Myogenesis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of 3D printing and tissue engineering in craniofacial reconstruction: A prospective observational study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Nanomaterial-integrated injectable hydrogels for craniofacial bone reconstruction.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Insulin promotes the bone formation capability of human dental pulp stem cells through attenuating the IIS/PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway axis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing of Hydrogels for Flexible Sensors: A Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Harnessing Natural Polymers for Nano-Scaffolds in Bone Tissue Engineering: A Comprehensive Overview of Bone Disease Treatment.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
- Advances in Regenerative Medicine for the Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in Functionalized Electrospun Membranes for Periodontal Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Revolutionising health care: Exploring the latest advances in medical sciences.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- An altered oral microbiota induced by injections of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle-labeled periodontal ligament stem cells helps periodontal bone regeneration in rats.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Decellularized Extracellular Matrix-Based Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting in Tissue Engineering.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Biomedical applications of three-dimensional bioprinted craniofacial tissue engineering.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Electrospun Fibers, 3D-Printed Scaffolds, and Hydrogels for Cancer Therapies.Polymers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anatomical complications of the craniofacial regions often present considerable challenges to the surgical repair or replacement of the damaged tissues. Surgical repair has its own set of limitations, including scarcity of the donor tissues, immune rejection, use of immune suppressors followed by the surgery, and restriction in restoring the natural aesthetic appeal. Rapid advancement in the field of biomaterials, cell biology, and engineering has helped scientists to create cellularized skeletal muscle-like structures. However, the existing method still has limitations in building large, highly vascular tissue with clinical application. With the advance in the three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technique, scientists and clinicians now can produce the functional implants of skeletal muscles and bones that are more patient-specific with the perfect match to the architecture of their craniofacial defects. Craniofacial tissue regeneration using 3D bioprinting can manage and eliminate the restrictions of the surgical transplant from the donor site. The concept of creating the new functional tissue, exactly mimicking the anatomical and physiological function of the damaged tissue, looks highly attractive. This is crucial to reduce the donor site morbidity and retain the esthetics. 3D bioprinting can integrate all three essential components of tissue engineering, that is, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and regeneration of the lost craniofacial tissues. Such integration essentially helps to develop the patient-specific treatment plans and damage site-driven creation of the functional implants for the craniofacial defects. This article is the bird's eye view on the latest development and application of 3D bioprinting in the regeneration of the skeletal muscle tissues and their application in restoring the functional abilities of the damaged craniofacial tissue. We also discussed current challenges in craniofacial bone vascularization and gave our view on the future direction, including establishing the interactions between tissue-engineered skeletal muscle and the peripheral nervous system.
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.