ReviewPolymers2025
Three-Dimensional Disassemblable Scaffolds for Breast Reconstruction.
Review in Polymers, 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.
- Biological Interactions in Rat Tibial Osteogenesis: Micro-CT, Histomorphometric, and Histological Analyses of Bioglass, Fibrin Biopolymer, and Photobiomodulation.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Breast Implants: Biomaterials, Surfaces, Biocompatibility-A Biomedical Engineering Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Soft Tissue Scaffolds in Breast Reconstruction: Evolution from Acellular Dermal Matrices to Synthetic Polymers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, significant progress has been made in breast reconstructive surgery, particularly with the use of three-dimensional (3D) disassemblable scaffolds. Reconstructive plastic surgery aimed at restoring the shape and size of the mammary gland offers medical, psychological, and social benefits. Using autologous tissues allows surgeons to recreate the appearance of the mammary gland and achieve tactile sensations similar to those of a healthy organ while minimizing the risks associated with implants; 3D disassemblable scaffolds are a promising solution that overcomes the limitations of traditional methods. These constructs offer the potential for patient-specific anatomical adaptation and can provide both temporary and long-term structural support for regenerating tissues. One of the most promising approaches in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction involves the use of autologous cellular and tissue components integrated into either synthetic scaffolds-such as polylactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid (PGA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and polycaprolactone (PCL)-or naturally derived biopolymer-based matrices, including alginate, chitosan, hyaluronic acid derivatives, collagen, fibrin, gelatin, and silk fibroin. In this context, two complementary research directions are gaining increasing significance: (1) the development of novel hybrid biomaterials that combine the favorable characteristics of both synthetic and natural polymers while maintaining biocompatibility and biodegradability; and (2) the advancement of three-dimensional bioprinting technologies for the fabrication of patient-specific scaffolds capable of incorporating cellular therapies. Such therapies typically involve mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and bioactive signaling molecules, such as growth factors, aimed at promoting angiogenesis, cellular proliferation, and lineage-specific differentiation. In our review, we analyze existing developments in this area and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of 3D disassemblable scaffolds for mammary gland reconstruction, as well as prospects for their further research and clinical use.
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.