ReviewJournal of tissue engineering
3D bioprinting of skin equivalents: Towards functional wound healing models.
Review in Journal of tissue engineering. 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.
- A Narrative Review of Advances in Skin Tissue Engineering: From Physiological Architecture to 3D Bioprinting.Cureus · 2026Review
- The Promise of 3D Biomaterial Bioprinting for Wound-Healing and Skin Tissue Restoration.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing physiologically relevant human skin models remains a critical challenge in regenerative medicine and disease modelling, particularly for chronic wounds that involve persistent inflammation and vascular dysfunction. Recent advances in 3D bioprinting provide improved spatial organisation and reproducibility compared with other engineering strategies, enabling the fabrication of skin equivalents with increasing structural and cellular complexity. Nevertheless, most current models do not capture the dynamic crosstalk between immune and vascular systems, which is central to wound healing and tissue homoeostasis. This review surveys recent progress in engineering skin models that incorporate immune and vascular elements, and discusses the biological and technological barriers that continue to limit their integration. We also highlight emerging strategies, including organoids, 4D bioprinting, and computational approaches, that may enable next-generation platforms. By more accurately modelling the wound microenvironment, such advances could accelerate translation from laboratory innovation to clinical application.
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.