ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Bioprinting the Craniofacial Region: A New Era in Regenerative Medicine and Dentistry.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing and bioprinting have emerged as transformative technologies in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Conventional 3D printing enables the fabrication of complex, customizable scaffolds that mimic the native extracellular matrix (ECM), providing mechanical support essential for cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. In contrast, 3D bioprinting integrates biomaterials, growth factors, and living cells into bioinks, allowing the precise layer-by-layer construction of tissue-like structures.
objectiveThis review aims to highlight recent advances and applications of both conventional 3D printing and 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine, with a specific focus on craniofacial tissue regeneration. Particular emphasis is placed on the distinct roles of scaffold-based and cell-laden approaches.
methodsA comprehensive analysis of the current literature was conducted to examine both conventional 3D printing and bioprinting approaches used in craniofacial tissue engineering. Emphasis was placed on printing techniques, bioink composition and selection, scaffold design, and cell sources, as well as their applications across multiple tissue types.
resultsRecent developments demonstrate that conventional 3D printing enables the fabrication of customizable scaffolds, whereas 3D bioprinting enables the generation of highly organized, cell-laden constructs that closely resemble native tissue architecture. These technologies have shown promising outcomes in developing patient-specific disease models and regenerative implants for craniofacial tissues, including bone, dental, tracheal, ocular, muscle, and neural tissues.
conclusions3D printing and bioprinting offer powerful platforms for craniofacial regenerative medicine. Ongoing advancements in bioink formulation, printing precision, and biological integration are expected to further enhance their translational and clinical potential.
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.