ReviewRegenerative biomaterials2025
Biomaterials-based approaches to mandibular tissue engineering: where we were, where we are, where we are going.
Review in Regenerative biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Biomaterials and 3D Bioprinting Approaches for Temporomandibular Joint Reconstruction: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Terbium-doped 3D-printed carbonate hydroxyapatite scaffold enhances bone regeneration.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mandible is the largest craniofacial bone and plays a crucial role in speech, mastication, swallowing, and facial aesthetics. The form or function of the mandible can be altered by defects as a result of tumors, trauma, infection, and congenital conditions. This paper covers the evolution of biomaterials-based approaches to the reconstruction of critical size mandibular defects. Historically the gold standard for critical size mandibular defect repair has been autologous fibula grafts. The emergence of the field of tissue engineering has led to the current research on biomaterial scaffolds, cells, and biological factors to design highly tunable, bio-inspired, tissue regenerative implants. Scaffold materials can be synthetic or natural and can be fabricated using a variety of additive manufacturing techniques. Mesenchymal stem cells, bone morphogenetic proteins, and transforming growth factor-β are frequently added to scaffolds. While great progress has been made, there are still barriers to translating this research to patients, ranging from insufficient bone regeneration in animal studies to the feasibility of establishing a good manufacturing practice. To address these challenges, the future of mandibular tissue engineering will look toward improving implant vascularization and innervation, personalizing implant shape and biology, and enhancing spatiotemporal control of drug release. With these goals in mind, researchers will ultimately develop biomaterials that can regenerate bone that is structurally and biologically identical to native mandibular tissue, improving both function and quality of life for patients.
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.