ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Additive manufacturing - an antidote to bottlenecks in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) has advanced by leveraging innovations in biomaterials, cell biology, and drug delivery, but its potential remains to be fully realized due to limitations in manufacturing complex cellular constructs. The complexity of cellular and extracellular matrix (ECM) organization poses a formidable challenge to replicate using conventional fabrication methods. Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the translation of design intent into controlled three-dimensional (3D) constructs with defined geometry, internal architecture, and spatially organized components. Beyond merely fabricating complex structures, its value lies in addressing structural, spatial, reproducibility, personalization, and translational limitations. However, printability does not guarantee biological function. By exploring AM of soft matter (hydrogels) as a practical manufacturing framework for TERM, this review first identifies the core manufacturing bottlenecks in classical TERM (Section 2), then evaluates how AM addresses structural fidelity, spatial patterning, digital reproducibility, and personalization (Section 3). Using osteochondral units, skin, and vascular grafts as representative testbeds (Section 4), we critically analyze current limitations-including bioink tradeoffs, resolution-scale constraints, and regulatory barriers (Section 5)-and outline the functional validation, standardization, and digital-AI integration needed for clinical implementation (Section 6). The review concludes that AM's translational impact will depend less on geometric complexity than on demonstrating tissue maturation, host integration, and regulatory compliance within viable clinical workflows.
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.