Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352353›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025

Better models, better treatment? a systematic review of current three dimensional (3D)

Neele Brümmer, Katharina Doll-Nikutta, Patrik Schadzek, Carina Mikolai, Andreas Kampmann, Dagmar Wirth, Andrea Hoffmann, Philipp-Cornelius Pott, Oliver Karras, Sören Auer and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

11 authors.

Neele BrümmerHannover Medical School, Clinic of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover, Germany.
Katharina Doll-NikuttaHannover Medical School, Clinic of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover, Germany.
Patrik SchadzekLower Saxony Center for Biomedical Engineering, Implant Research and Development (NIFE), Hannover, Germany.
Carina MikolaiHannover Medical School, Clinic of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover, Germany.
Andreas KampmannLower Saxony Center for Biomedical Engineering, Implant Research and Development (NIFE), Hannover, Germany.
Dagmar WirthHelmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany.
Andrea HoffmannLower Saxony Center for Biomedical Engineering, Implant Research and Development (NIFE), Hannover, Germany.
Philipp-Cornelius PottHannover Medical School, Clinic of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover, Germany.
Oliver KarrasTIB - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany.
Sören AuerTIB - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany.
Meike StieschHannover Medical School, Clinic of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding the biology of implant-associated infections is essential in order to provide adequate detection, prevention and therapeutic strategies. Advanced 3D in vitro models offer valuable insights into the complex interactions between cells and bacteria in the presence of implant materials. This review aims to give a comprehensive overview of current 3D in vitro models that mimic implant-associated infections. Methods: The structured literature search initially identified 258 publications, seven of which fitted the inclusion criteria. Results: The included 3D models were established either to mimic the in vivo situation (organotypic model) or to investigate future implant materials. In three studies, organotypic models for dental implants were created and one study described an organotypic model containing immune cells. In the remaining three studies, biomaterials for constructing future orthopedic implants were developed and tested. All authors included specific cells and bacteria suitable for the respective implants. The dental implant models used fibroblasts and keratinocytes; the orthopedic implant models used stem cells and fibroblast-like cells; the model containing immune cells incorporated co-cultivation of fibroblasts and THP-1 derived macrophages. For bacterial challenge, most authors used Gram positive bacteria, but three studies employed Gram negative bacterial species. A wide variety of analytical methods of different complexity were applied after co-culture of cells and bacteria and between one and five different methods were used. Discussion: All models could be employed to provide answers to specific scientific questions regarding implant-associated infections. Nonetheless, this review reveals the limitations of current 3D models for the investigation of implant-associated infections and highlights the opportunities for further development in this scientific field.

Indexed as

3D modelimplantinfectionin vitrotissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID40352353
PMCPMC12061920

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.