ReviewBiomedical engineering online2025
Indirect 3D printing in tissue engineering: expanding materials used for improved scaffold functionality.
Review in Biomedical engineering online, 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.
- Green and Scalable Manufacturing of Biodegradable Polymer Scaffolds: Solvent-Free Processing, Supercritical COPolymers · 2026Review
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tissue Engineering: Biological Principles, Engineered Substitutes, and Preclinical Outcomes.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Three-dimensionally printed mesoporous bioactive glass for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration: Material evolution, functional mechanisms, and clinical translation.Cell transplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During the past decades, three-dimensional (3D) printing processes have come as the foremost technology for the fabrication of scaffolds in tissue engineering (TE). The advanced technical approaches followed by 3D printing have provided architectural versatility and customizability. Despite the many progresses, several limitations have emerged related to the available, processable range of materials offering desired functions equivalent or suitable for the target tissue. To address the issue raised, several novel methodologies have been developed where a 3D printed sacrificial mold serves to produce the final scaffold from a wide range of materials, even from the difficult-to-print or unprintable materials. These techniques are known as "indirect 3D printing" (I3DP), which like the direct 3D printing approaches, are able to manufacture controlled, patient-specific constructs. Direct 3D printing faces limitations like poor printability of natural soft polymers and bio-ceramics, restricted resolution of the printed objects, and a limited range of compatible materials. Indirect 3D printing overcomes these by enabling the use of a much wider variety of materials and creating high-strength ceramic scaffolds without clogging or structural defects. This method also provides superior resolution with less parameter optimization and minimizes material waste, making it more efficient. The current review paper presents a state-of-the-art study of how indirect 3D printing is being utilized in tissue engineering. The focus is given to the details of steps required for the production of scaffolds including mold design, software, 3D printing machines used, mold and scaffold materials, mold removal approaches, combination with other pore forming methodologies and the area of applications in tissue engineering.
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.