ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Surface Functionalization of 3D-Printed Bio-Inspired Scaffolds for Biomedical Applications: A Review.
Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioprinting the Craniofacial Region: A New Era in Regenerative Medicine and Dentistry.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Three-dimensional printing and cochlear implantation: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Physicochemical Characterization of Injectable Genipin-Crosslinked Gelatin-Kelulut Honey Hydrogels for Future Cutaneous Tissue Loss.Polymers · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a highly effective scaffold manufacturing technique that may revolutionize tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. The use of scaffolds, along with growth factors and cells, remains among the most promising approaches to organ regeneration. However, the applications of hard 3D-printed scaffolds may be limited by their poor surface properties, which play a crucial role in cell recruitment and infiltration, tissue-scaffold integration, and anti-inflammatory properties. However, various prerequisites must be met before 3D-printed scaffolds can be applied clinically to the human body. Consequently, various attempts have been made to modify the surfaces, porosities, and mechanical properties of these scaffolds. Techniques that involve the chemical and material modification of surfaces can also be applied to enhance scaffold efficacy. This review summarizes the characteristics and discusses the developmental directions of the latest 3D-printing technologies according to its intended application in unmet clinical needs.
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.