ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Bone Tissue Engineering: Scaffold Design Principles, Biomaterial Advances, and Strategies for Functional Regeneration and Clinical Translation.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biofabrication and Characterization of Fluorapatite-Coated Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) Microscaffolds: Physicochemical Properties and Human Dental Pulp Stem Cell Responses.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Workflow in Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering: From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to Personalized Bioceramic Implants.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Bridging Scales: Integrating Hyaluronan-Based Nanoencapsulation into 3D Hydrogel Constructs for Advanced Therapeutics-A Comprehensive Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Paracrine Signaling in Cell-Biomaterial Interactions in Scaffold Vascularization: A Mini Review.Biomimetics (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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone is a hierarchically organized composite material with unique mechanical properties and an intrinsic regenerative capacity that conventional repair strategies, including autografts, allografts, xenografts, and metallic or ceramic implants, fail to fully replicate due to donor scarcity, immunogenicity, mechanical mismatch, and poor long-term integration. Bone tissue engineering (TE) offers a biologically informed alternative by integrating osteoconductive scaffolds, osteogenic progenitor cells, and osteoinductive signaling molecules into a unified regenerative framework. Unlike existing reviews that evaluate these components in isolation, this review provides a mechanistically integrated analysis that repositions scaffold design as a biologically instructive platform whose topography, stiffness, porosity, and surface chemistry collectively govern cell adhesion, mechanotransduction, osteogenic differentiation, and extracellular matrix remodeling. Critically, it moves beyond cataloging materials and fabrication approaches to evaluate how specific scaffold features drive biological outcomes and to identify frequently understated limitations, including polymer-ceramic degradation kinetics and the inadequacy of small-animal models for clinical translation. By synthesizing advances in biomaterials, additive manufacturing, and smart scaffold technologies within this integrative framework, this review provides researchers and clinicians with a structured framework for evaluating emerging strategies and prioritizing future directions in functional bone regeneration.
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.