Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37374451›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Resorbable Biomaterials Used for 3D Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: A Review.

Sara Vach Agocsova, Martina Culenova, Ivana Birova, Leona Omanikova, Barbora Moncmanova, Lubos Danisovic, Stanislav Ziaran, Dusan Bakos, Pavol Alexy

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A Mussel-Inspired Bioadhesive Patch to Selectively Kill Glioblastoma Cells.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara Vach AgocsovaInstitute of Natural and Synthetic Polymers, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, 812 37 Bratislava, Slovakia.
Martina CulenovaPanara a.s., Krskanska 21, 949 05 Nitra, Slovakia.
Ivana BirovaPanara a.s., Krskanska 21, 949 05 Nitra, Slovakia.
Leona OmanikovaPanara a.s., Krskanska 21, 949 05 Nitra, Slovakia.
Barbora MoncmanovaInstitute of Natural and Synthetic Polymers, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, 812 37 Bratislava, Slovakia.
Lubos DanisovicNational Institute of Rheumatic Diseases, Nabrezie I. Krasku 4, 921 12 Piestany, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0002-5074-9621
Stanislav ZiaranNational Institute of Rheumatic Diseases, Nabrezie I. Krasku 4, 921 12 Piestany, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0002-5487-0875
Dusan BakosInstitute of Natural and Synthetic Polymers, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, 812 37 Bratislava, Slovakia.
Pavol AlexyInstitute of Natural and Synthetic Polymers, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, 812 37 Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0001-8905-8468
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava · SKNational Institute of Rheumatic Diseases · SK

Funding

National Institute of Rheumatic Diseases, Nabrezie I. Krasku 4, 921 12 Piestany, Slovakia 313011V358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a thorough overview of the available resorbable biomaterials appropriate for producing replacements for damaged tissues. In addition, their various properties and application possibilities are discussed as well. Biomaterials are fundamental components in tissue engineering (TE) of scaffolds and play a critical role. They need to exhibit biocompatibility, bioactivity, biodegradability, and non-toxicity, to ensure their ability to function effectively with an appropriate host response. With ongoing research and advancements in biomaterials for medical implants, the objective of this review is to explore recently developed implantable scaffold materials for various tissues. The categorization of biomaterials in this paper includes fossil-based materials (e.g., PCL, PVA, PU, PEG, and PPF), natural or bio-based materials (e.g., HA, PLA, PHB, PHBV, chitosan, fibrin, collagen, starch, and hydrogels), and hybrid biomaterials (e.g., PCL/PLA, PCL/PEG, PLA/PEG, PLA/PHB PCL/collagen, PCL/chitosan, PCL/starch, and PLA/bioceramics). The application of these biomaterials in both hard and soft TE is considered, with a particular focus on their physicochemical, mechanical, and biological properties. Furthermore, the interactions between scaffolds and the host immune system in the context of scaffold-driven tissue regeneration are discussed. Additionally, the article briefly mentions the concept of in situ TE, which leverages the self-renewal capacities of affected tissues and highlights the crucial role played by biopolymer-based scaffolds in this strategy.

Indexed as

3D scaffoldsbioceramicsbiomaterialsbiopolymersforeign body responsehybrid biomaterialsimmunoengineeringtissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID37374451
PMCPMC10301242
OpenAlexW4380085278

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.