Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39649248›Full record

ReviewMaterials today. Bio2024

Commercially available bioinks and state-of-the-art lab-made formulations for bone tissue engineering: A comprehensive review.

Elena Alina Chiticaru, Mariana Ioniță

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Materials today. Bio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elena Alina ChiticaruFaculty of Medical Engineering, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, Gh Polizu 1-7, 011061, Bucharest, Romania.
Mariana IonițăFaculty of Medical Engineering, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, Gh Polizu 1-7, 011061, Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bioprinting and bioinks are two of the game changers in bone tissue engineering. This review presents different bioprinting technologies including extrusion-based, inkjet-based, laser-assisted, light-based, and hybrid technologies with their own strengths and weaknesses. This review will aid researchers in the selection and assessment of the bioink; the discussion ranges from commercially available bioinks to custom lab-made formulations mainly based on natural polymers, such as agarose, alginate, gelatin, collagen, and chitosan, designed for bone tissue engineering. The review is centered on technological advancements and increasing clinical demand within the rapidly growing bioprinting market. From this point of view, 4D, 5D, and 6D printing technologies promise a future where unprecedented levels of innovation will be involved in fabrication processes leading to more dynamic multifunctionalities of bioprinted constructs. Further advances in bioprinting technology, such as hybrid bioprinting methods are covered, with the promise to meet personalized medicine goals while advancing patient outcomes for bone tissues engineering applications.

Indexed as

BioprintingBone tissue engineeringCommercial bioinkPrintable formulation

Identifiers

PMID39649248
PMCPMC11625167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.