Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42518768›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026

Role of cellulose and its derivatives for 3D printing of bone tissue scaffolds.

Duygu Ege, Ali Reza Kamali, Stuart Goodman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Duygu EgeInstitute of Biomedical Engineering Boğaziçi University Istanbul, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Ali Reza KamaliSchool of Metallurgy, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Stuart GoodmanDepartment of Orthopeadic Surgery, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D printing has become central to bone tissue engineering, yet many printable polymers lack the mechanical strength, hydrophilicity, and bioactivity needed for effective bone regeneration. Cellulose and its derivatives have emerged as versatile additives that address these limitations across multiple scaffold types. This review highlights recent advances in 3D printed scaffolds incorporating cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), microcrystals (MCC), nanofibrils (CNF), bacterial cellulose (BC), and chemically modified cellulose derivatives including carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), methyl cellulose (MC), diethylaminoethyl-modified cellulose (DEAE) and cellulose acetate (CA). In hydrogels, CNF and BC provide shear-thinning behavior and mechanical strength, while in polymer-ceramic hybrids, CNC improves stiffness. CA, owing to its thermoplastic processability and tunable hydrophobicity, enables high-resolution extrusion and melt-based printing while serving as a mechanically stable backbone that can be further biofunctionalized through surface modification. CMC, MC and DEAE cellulose are key printing enablers when blended with polymers such as gelatin or HAp. This review also shows that further modification of cellulose seems to enhance its potential for future clinical translation. Together, these findings demonstrate that cellulose is a key design element that transforms mechanically weak or biologically inert inks into robust, osteoconductive scaffolds. The review concludes with emerging trends and remaining opportunities for cellulose-based bioinks in bone regeneration.

Indexed as

bacterial cellulosecarboxymethyl cellulosecellulose nanocrystalcellulose nanofibermethyl cellulose

Identifiers

PMID42518768
PMCPMC13381466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.