ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Clinical translation of 3D bioprinting in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction: Recent progress and future directions.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biofabrication for complex tissue regeneration: a scoping review of translational gaps in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction.Frontiers in oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral and maxillofacial reconstruction (OMF) requires regeneration of bone, soft tissue, vasculature, and nerves. Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting offers a paradigm shift, enabling fabrication of patient-specific, cell-laden constructs designed to restore both anatomical form and biological function. This review presents an updated review on the clinical translation of 3D bioprinting in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction and presents future directions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies published up to June 2025, using search terms such as "3D bioprinting," "bioink," "OMF reconstruction," and tissue-specific phrases. Extracted data addressed bioprinting strategies, biomaterials, and outcomes, which were synthesized into translational phases and tissue-specific applications. Results: Four phases of translational progress were identified: (1) in vitro validation of bioinks and cell viability; (2) small-animal studies demonstrating osteogenesis, angiogenesis, and pulp-periodontal regeneration; (3) large-animal models addressing anatomical scalability and achieving partial functional integration; and (4) early human applications of acellular, patient-specific scaffolds. Success depends on tailoring bioinks-integrating stem cells, biomaterials, and signaling molecules-for tissues such as vascularized pulp, mineralized bone, and the periodontal ligament interface. Conclusion: 3D bioprinting holds transformative potential for OMF reconstruction. While progress is evident from bench to large-animal studies, clinical adoption of viable, cell-laden constructs remains elusive. Overcoming biofabrication, integration, and regulatory challenges through interdisciplinary collaboration will be critical to realize the promise of patient-specific, functional bioprinted OMF tissues in clinical practice.
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.