ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2023
Current Trend and New Opportunities for Multifunctional Bio-Scaffold Fabrication via High-Pressure Foaming.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements in Functional Polymeric Scaffolds for Scar-Free Skin Regeneration.Polymer science & technology (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- Alginate-Based Solid Foam Incorporating Rügen Chalk: A Novel Platform for Modern Application of Peloids.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Design and Fabrication of Biomimetic Gradient Bone Tissue Engineering Scaffolds: Evolution from Single-Gradient to Multi-Gradient.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Unveiling the potential of inorganic nanoparticle-based scaffolds in wound healing: advances in antimicrobial and regenerative strategies.Nanoscale advances · 2026Review
- COGels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Tissue Regeneration of Radiation-Induced Skin Damages Using Protein/Polysaccharide-Based Bioengineered Scaffolds and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Drug-Loaded Bioscaffolds for Osteochondral Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in Scaffolds for Guided Bone Regeneration.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biocompatible and biodegradable foams prepared using the high-pressure foaming technique have been widely investigated in recent decades as porous scaffolds for in vitro and in vivo tissue growth. In fact, the foaming process can operate at low temperatures to load bioactive molecules and cells within the pores of the scaffold, while the density and pore architecture, and, hence, properties of the scaffold, can be finely modulated by the proper selection of materials and processing conditions. Most importantly, the high-pressure foaming of polymers is an ideal choice to limit and/or avoid the use of cytotoxic and tissue-toxic compounds during scaffold preparation. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with the state of the art and current trend in the high-pressure foaming of biomedical polymers and composites towards the design and fabrication of multifunctional scaffolds for tissue engineering. This manuscript describes the application of the gas foaming process for bio-scaffold design and fabrication and highlights some of the most interesting results on: (1) the engineering of porous scaffolds featuring biomimetic porosity to guide cell behavior and to mimic the hierarchical architecture of complex tissues, such as bone; (2) the bioactivation of the scaffolds through the incorporation of inorganic fillers and drugs.
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.