ReviewTissue engineering. Part C, Methods2023
Three-Dimensional Printing Bioceramic Scaffolds Using Direct-Ink-Writing for Craniomaxillofacial Bone Regeneration.
Review in Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Mechano-Genomic Frontier: Orchestrating Nuclear Deformation for Craniomaxillofacial Bone Regeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing and Personalized Bioceramic Scaffolds for Dental and Maxillofacial Applications: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Cranial Defect Reconstruction With Custom 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds Augmented With rhBMP-2 or Dipyridamole in a Nonhuman Primate Model.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of 3D-Printed Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffold Polymorphism and Post-Processing Variations on Bone Regenerative Outcomes.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing of Calcium Phosphate-Mesoporous Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Biofabrication - Revolutionizing the future of regenerative periodontics.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2025Review
- Treatment of Bone Defects and Nonunion via Novel Delivery Mechanisms, Growth Factors, and Stem Cells: A Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2024Review
- Advances in Bioceramics for Bone Regeneration: A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Personalized bioceramic grafts for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration.International journal of oral science · 2024Review
- Biomimetic Tissue Engineering Strategies for Craniofacial Applications.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Translational Experimental Basis of Indirect Adenosine Receptor Agonist Stimulation for Bone Regeneration: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Direct inkjet writing of polylactic acid/β-tricalcium phosphate composites for bone tissue regeneration: A proof-of-concept study.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2024Article
- Recent advances in additive manufacturing of patient-specific devices for dental and maxillofacial rehabilitation.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2024Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing Methods for Bioceramic-Based Scaffold Fabrication for Craniomaxillofacial Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- The Role of Guided Bone Regeneration in Enhancing Dental Implant Success : Guided Bone Regeneration in Dental Implant.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- 3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Defects characterized as large osseous voids in bone, in certain circumstances, are difficult to treat, requiring extensive treatments which lead to an increased financial burden, pain, and prolonged hospital stays. Grafts exist to aid in bone tissue regeneration (BTR), among which ceramic-based grafts have become increasingly popular due to their biocompatibility and resorbability. BTR using bioceramic materials such as β-tricalcium phosphate has seen tremendous progress and has been extensively used in the fabrication of biomimetic scaffolds through the three-dimensional printing (3DP) workflow. 3DP has hence revolutionized BTR by offering unparalleled potential for the creation of complex, patient, and anatomic location-specific structures. More importantly, it has enabled the production of biomimetic scaffolds with porous structures that mimic the natural extracellular matrix while allowing for cell growth-a critical factor in determining the overall success of the BTR modality. While the concept of 3DP bioceramic bone tissue scaffolds for human applications is nascent, numerous studies have highlighted its potential in restoring both form and function of critically sized defects in a wide variety of translational models. In this review, we summarize these recent advancements and present a review of the engineering principles and methodologies that are vital for using 3DP technology for craniomaxillofacial reconstructive applications. Moreover, we highlight future advances in the field of dynamic 3D printed constructs via shape-memory effect, and comment on pharmacological manipulation and bioactive molecules required to treat a wider range of boney defects.
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.