ReviewCells2026
Smart Hydrogels for Craniofacial Regeneration.
Review in Cells, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydrogel scaffolds have emerged as instructive microenvironments for craniofacial tissue regeneration, moving beyond passive cell carriers toward platforms that regulate cell fate, vascularization, immune remodeling, and tissue-specific architecture. This review synthesizes hydrogel-associated strategies across dental pulp, periodontal ligament, gingival, bone marrow, jawbone, endothelial, oral mucosal, induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC), extracellular vesicle (EV), exosome, secretome, and acellular systems. The evidence indicates that craniofacial hydrogel performance is governed by reciprocal interactions among biological source, scaffold composition, matrix mechanics, spatial architecture, mineral or ionic signaling, growth factor delivery, vesicle-mediated communication, and inflammatory niche modulation. Mineralized and ion-releasing hydrogels most consistently supported osteogenesis and bone repair, whereas extracellular matrix (ECM)-mimetic, peptide, collagen, fibrin, gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), alginate, hyaluronic acid (HA), and chitosan-based systems enabled pulp-dentin, periodontal, peri-implant, oral mucosal, and soft-tissue reconstruction. Responsive, antimicrobial, antioxidant, conductive, and immunomodulatory hydrogels further expanded the field by targeting diseased microenvironments rather than regeneration alone. Despite strong preclinical evidence, translation remains limited by heterogeneity in scaffold formulations, biological sources, analytical endpoints, defect models, and long-term functional validation. Future progress will require standardized characterization, tissue-specific design criteria, clinically relevant large-animal models, scalable cell-free technologies, and integrated assessment of regeneration, immunity, vascularization, innervation, mechanics, and safety.
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.