ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[3D printing in surgery: relevance of technology maturity assessment in bioprinting research studies].
Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emerging Metal Additive Manufacturing for Individualized Dental Therapies: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological 3D printing (bioprinting) is an extension of what is defined as additive manufacturing in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and is based on the automated printing of living cells and biomaterials. Researchers and experts in the field of biomaterial science, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TE&RM) are constantly pointing to the potential of biological 3D printing and scientific articles regularly announce the imminent clinical application. We argue in this article that these announcements are often premature and counterproductive as they focus heavily on technological progress but regularly ignore the critical stages that need to be completed in order to successfully translate a technology into the healthcare market. The technology readiness level (TRL) scale is a potentially useful tool for measuring the relative maturity of a technology in terms of overcoming a series of critical milestones. We propose an adaptation of the TRL scale and use it to discuss the current state of research on biological 3D printing. Finally, we provide specific recommendations for optimizing future research projects to pave the way for clinical applications of biological 3D printing and thus achieve a direct positive impact on surgical patient care.
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.