ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
The Role of 3D Printing in Regenerative Medicine: A Game-Changer in Tissue Engineering.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Smart Hydrogel Design to 4D-Printed Scaffolds: Emerging Paradigms in Precision Drug Delivery and Regenerative Wound Therapy.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Natural Polymers in Tissue Engineering and Regeneration: Material-Cell Mechanotransduction, Biofabrication Strategies, and Clinical Translation.Biomedicines · 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
In regenerative medicine, three-dimensional (3D) printing provides precise spatial control over the fabrication of complex, biomimetic tissue constructs, enabling the production of architecturally defined and functionally tailored scaffolds. By enabling precise layer-by-layer deposition of cells, biomaterials, and bioactive compounds, 3D printing overcomes many limitations associated with conventional scaffold fabrication methods. This approach facilitates the development of tailored structures that mimic the mechanical, biological, and structural characteristics of native tissues, thereby enhancing cellular organization, proliferation, and differentiation. Extensive research in tissue engineering has led to the development of 3D-printed scaffolds for the regeneration of vascular, skin, bone, cartilage, and soft tissues. Advances in bioink formulations-including growth factor-loaded systems, decellularized extracellular matrix components, and natural and synthetic polymers-have further improved tissue-specific functionality. Moreover, multimaterial and multiscale printing strategies enable the fabrication of heterogeneous constructs with controlled porosity, mechanical gradients, and spatially regulated biological cues. Although vascularized tissue constructs remain a major challenge for clinical translation, recent bioprinting advancements have significantly accelerated progress in this area. Integration of computer-aided design with patient-specific imaging data has further strengthened the potential of 3D printing for personalized regenerative therapies. Despite these advances, challenges related to scalability, regulatory approval, and long-term functionality persist. Nevertheless, continued progress in printing technologies, biomaterials, and regulatory and standards frameworks is expected to drive the clinical adoption of 3D printing. Ultimately, 3D printing represents a transformative approach in tissue engineering, redefining strategies for functional tissue regeneration and translational 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.