Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37719307›Full record

ReviewJournal of tissue engineering

3D bioprinting of corneal models: A review of the current state and future outlook.

Leon Balters, Stephan Reichl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of tissue engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Closing the Loop: High-Precision 3D Photofabrication in Living Tissues.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Keratin-Laden Bioink for Corneal Stroma Bioprinting.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Leon BaltersInstitute of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmaceutics, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Stephan ReichlInstitute of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmaceutics, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8344-9070

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cornea is the outermost layer of the eye and serves to protect the eye and enable vision by refracting light. The need for cornea organ donors remains high, and the demand for an artificial alternative continues to grow. 3D bioprinting is a promising new method to create artificial organs and tissues. 3D bioprinting offers the precise spatial arrangement of biomaterials and cells to create 3D constructs. As the cornea is an avascular tissue which makes it more attractive for 3D bioprinting, it could be one of the first tissues to be made fully functional via 3D bioprinting. This review discusses the most common 3D bioprinting technologies and biomaterials used for 3D bioprinting corneal models. Additionally, the current state of 3D bioprinted corneal models, especially specific characteristics such as light transmission, biomechanics, and marker expression, and in vivo studies are discussed. Finally, the current challenges and future prospects are presented.

Indexed as

3D bioprintingcorneaeyeregenerative medicinetissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID37719307
PMCPMC10504850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.