ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Three-Dimensional Bioprinting for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomaterials for intervertebral disc regeneration: Niche reprogramming, precision therapeutics, and structural reconstruction.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- Organ-on-a-Chip Technology: Advances in Modeling Inflammation, Neurovascularization and Nociception in Human Intervertebral Disc Degeneration.Smart medicine · 2026Review
- Single-Step Extrusion Printing of Microgrooved Annulus Fibrosus Scaffolds via Patterned Nozzles.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Biomimetic Strategies for Bone Regeneration: Smart Scaffolds and Multiscale Cues.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- HMGB1 mediated autophagy and apoptosis in human nucleus pulposus cells; chloroquine amplified apoptosis by inhibiting autophagy.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rising demand for organ transplants and the need for precise tissue models have positioned the in vitro biomanufacturing of tissues and organs as a pivotal area in regenerative treatment. Considerable development has been achieved in growing tissue-engineered intervertebral disc (IVD) scaffolds, designed to meet stringent mechanical and biological compatibility criteria. Among the cutting-edge approaches, 3D bioprinting stands out due to its unparalleled capacity to organize biomaterials, bioactive molecules, and living cells with high precision. Despite these advancements, polymer-based scaffolds still encounter limitations in replicating the extracellular matrix (ECM)-like environment, which is fundamental for optimal cellular activities. To overcome these challenges, integrating polymers with hydrogels has been recommended as a promising solution. This combination enables the advancement of porous scaffolds that nurture cell adhesion, proliferation, as well as differentiation. Additionally, bioinks derived from the decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) have exhibited potential in replicating biologically relevant microenvironments, enhancing cell viability, differentiation, and motility. Hydrogels, whether derived from natural sources involving collagen and alginate or synthesized chemically, are highly valued for their ECM-like properties and superior biocompatibility. This review will explore recent advancements in techniques and technologies for IVD regeneration. Emphasis will be placed on identifying research gaps and proposing strategies to bridge them, with the goal of accelerating the translation of IVDs into clinical applications.
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.