ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2024
Biomaterials for Regenerative Cranioplasty: Current State of Clinical Application and Future Challenges.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The cranioplasty equation: the influence of biomaterials, surgical timing, and frailty on optimising success.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Beyond the bone flap: integrating biomarkers, imaging, and emerging technologies in the surgical continuum of acute subdural hematoma (ASDH).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Clinical implementation of an EU MDR-compliant point-of-care manufacturing framework for patient-specific 3D-printed PEEK implants in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- Bone Tissue Engineering: Recent Advances and Translation to Clinical Application.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Assessment of physicochemical alterations in 3D-printed biodegradable implants under biomimetic conditions for cranial defect repair.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
- 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
- Definitive reconstruction of frontal asymmetry in an adolescent with anterior plagiocephaly due to unilateral coronal craniosynostosis using a hybrid osteo-titanium technology based on an individualized approach: A case report.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Current State of Knowledge Regarding the Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects: An Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Balancing form and function: A single-center review of autologous vs. synthetic grafts in cranioplasty.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Osteoclast-like multinucleated giant cells reinforce polycaprolactone grafts.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Acquired cranial defects are a prevalent condition in neurosurgery and call for cranioplasty, where the missing or defective cranium is replaced by an implant. Nevertheless, the biomaterials in current clinical applications are hardly exempt from long-term safety and comfort concerns. An appealing solution is regenerative cranioplasty, where biomaterials with/without cells and bioactive molecules are applied to induce the regeneration of the cranium and ultimately repair the cranial defects. This review examines the current state of research, development, and translational application of regenerative cranioplasty biomaterials and discusses the efforts required in future research. The first section briefly introduced the regenerative capacity of the cranium, including the spontaneous bone regeneration bioactivities and the presence of pluripotent skeletal stem cells in the cranial suture. Then, three major types of biomaterials for regenerative cranioplasty, namely the calcium phosphate/titanium (CaP/Ti) composites, mineralised collagen, and 3D-printed polycaprolactone (PCL) composites, are reviewed for their composition, material properties, and findings from clinical trials. The third part discusses perspectives on future research and development of regenerative cranioplasty biomaterials, with a considerable portion based on issues identified in clinical trials. This review aims to facilitate the development of biomaterials that ultimately contribute to a safer and more effective healing of cranial 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.