ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2024
Advances in clinical applications of bioceramics in the new regenerative medicine era.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Black phosphorus in theragenerative medicine: a multi-organ perspective on disease modulation and tissue repair.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Release and Cytocompatibility Study of New Hybrid Materials Based on Ferulic Acid for Biomedical Use.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Bioglasses Versus Bioactive Calcium Phosphate Derivatives as Advanced Ceramics in Tissue Engineering: Comparative and Comprehensive Study, Current Trends, and Innovative Solutions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Strategies for Craniofacial Tissue Engineering: Innovations for Scalable Bone Regeneration.Plastic and aesthetic research · 2025Article
- Personalized bioceramic grafts for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration.International journal of oral science · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this editorial, we comment on the hard and soft tissue applications of different ceramic-based scaffolds prepared by different mechanisms such as 3D printing, sol-gel, and electrospinning. The new concept of regenerative medicine relies on biomaterials that can trigger in situ tissue regeneration and stem cell recruitment at the defect site. A large percentage of these biomaterials is ceramic-based as they provide the essential requirements of biomaterial principles such as tailored multisize porosity, antibacterial properties, and angiogenic properties. All these previously mentioned properties put bioceramics on top of the hierarchy of biomaterials utilized to stimulate tissue regeneration in soft and hard tissue wounds. Multiple clinical applications registered the use of these materials in triggering soft tissue regeneration in healthy and diabetic patients such as bioactive glass nanofibers. The results were promising and opened new frontiers for utilizing these materials on a larger scale. The same results were mentioned when using different forms and formulas of bioceramics in hard defect regeneration. Some bioceramics were used in combination with other polymers and biological scaffolds to improve their regenerative and mechanical properties. All this progress will enable a larger scale of patients to receive such services with ease and decrease the financial burden on the government.
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.