ReviewJournal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs2025
Skin substitutes: from conventional to 3D bioprinting.
Review in Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in regenerative medicine-based approaches for skin regeneration and rejuvenation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Development of pathological skin models: from conventional techniques to 3D bioprinting.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional bioprinting is getting enormous attention among the scientific community for its application in complex regenerative tissue engineering applications. One of the focus areas of 3-D bioprinting is Skin tissue engineering. Skin is the largest external organ and also the outer protective layer is prone to injuries due to accidents, burns, pathologic diseases like diabetes, and immobilization of patients due to other health conditions, etc. The demand for skin tissue and the need for an off-the-shelf skin construct to treat patients is increasing on an alarming basis. Conventional approaches like skin grafting increase morbidity. Other approaches include acellular grafts, where integration with the host tissue is a major concern. The emerging technology of the future is 3D bioprinting, where different biopolymers or hybrid polymers together provide the properties of extracellular matrix (ECM) and tissue microenvironment needed for cellular growth and proliferation. This raises the hope for the possibility of a shelf skin construct, which can be used on demand or even skin can be printed directly on the wound site (in-situ printing) based on the depth and complex structure of the wound site. In the present review article, we have tried to provide an overview of Skin tissue engineering, Conventional advancement in technology, 3D bioprinting and bioprinters for skin 3D printing, different biomaterials for skin 3D bioprinting applications, desirable properties of biomaterials and future challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39739216What 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.