ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Modified Polysaccharides: Potential Biomaterials for Bioprinting.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydroxyapatite-Polysaccharide Composites Synthesized from Maize Lime-Cooking Wastewater for Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- From Nature to Innovation: Exploring Natural Biopolymers in 3D Bioprinting for Bone Regeneration.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Anionic Polysaccharides: Promising 3D Bioink Candidates for Tissue Engineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bioprinting in Tissue Repair and Its ENT Applications.Polymers · 2026Review
- Marine Algae Hydrogels as Emerging Biomaterials for Medicine.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 3D Printing with Tragacanth-Gum-Based Bioinks: A New Frontier in Bioprinting Materials.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Collagen-Inducing Compounds from Chihuahuan Desert Plants for Potential Skin Bioink 3D Printing Applications: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polysaccharides have emerged as promising biomaterials for 3D bioprinting due to their inherent biocompatibility, biodegradability, and structural diversity. However, their limited mechanical strength, insufficient bioactivity, and suboptimal printability hinder their direct application in fabricating complex tissue constructs. This review systematically summarizes universal modification strategies to address these challenges by tailoring polysaccharides' physicochemical and biological properties. We first analyse the fundamental requirements of bioprinting materials, emphasising on the critical role of shear-thinning behaviours, post-printing structural fidelity, and cell-instructive functions. Subsequently, we highlight the advantages and limitations of representative polysaccharides, including chitosan, alginate, and hyaluronic acid. Chemical functionalisation, physical reinforcement, and biological hybridisation are proposed as versatile approaches to synergistically enhance printability, mechanical robustness, and bioactivity to tackle the limitations. Furthermore, dynamic crosslinking mechanisms enabling self-healing and stimuli-responsive behaviours are discussed as emerging solutions for constructing biomimetic architectures. Finally, we outline future directions in balancing material processability with cellular viability and scaling up modified polysaccharides for clinical translation. This review aims to provide a design blueprint for engineering polysaccharide-based bioinks toward next-generation regenerative medicine.
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.