ReviewCells2026
Three-Dimensional Bioprinting in Reconstructive Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is an evolving biofabrication approach in regenerative medicine with the potential to overcome many limitations of conventional reconstructive techniques, including donor-site morbidity, limited tissue availability, and suboptimal restoration of form and function. Recent advances in biofabrication have accelerated the development of patient-specific living constructs for reconstructive applications. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence on the use of 3D bioprinting in reconstructive surgery, emphasizing developments most relevant to plastic surgery. The current literature on bioprinting technologies, bioinks, tissue-specific applications, translational studies, and regulatory considerations was critically reviewed. Significant progress has been achieved in the bioprinting of skin, cartilage, bone, osteochondral tissues, vascularized constructs, and composite craniofacial tissues. Advances in extrusion-, inkjet-, laser-, and stereolithography-based printing, together with increasingly sophisticated natural and synthetic bioinks, have improved construct fidelity, cellular viability, and tissue-specific functionality. In situ bioprinting, patient-specific computer-aided design, and hybrid biomaterial strategies have further expanded the clinical potential of bioprinted tissues. Despite these advances, major barriers remain, including inadequate vascularization of large constructs, limited mechanical maturation of load-bearing tissues, manufacturing standardization, regulatory uncertainty, and the absence of robust long-term clinical outcomes. Three-dimensional bioprinting is enabling increasingly personalized tissue fabrication, although most applications remain preclinical. Clinical translation will require further advances in biomaterials, vascular engineering, manufacturing standardization, and regulatory science.
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.