ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2022
Cell-Seeded Biomaterial Scaffolds: The Urgent Need for Unanswered Accelerated Angiogenesis.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fibrin scaffolds for angiogenesis in soft tissue models: a systematic review.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Sacrificing Alginate in Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Scaffolds for Implantable Artificial Livers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Advancements in bioengineered and autologous skin grafting techniques for skin reconstruction: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Polysaccharide-based biomaterials in a journey from 3D to 4D printing.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- Resorbable Biomaterials Used for 3D Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Single-stage transplantation combined with epidermal stem cells promotes the survival of tissue-engineered skin by inducing early angiogenesis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Article
- Prevascularization techniques for dental pulp regeneration: potential cell sources, intercellular communication and construction strategies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Electrically conductive carbon-based (bio)-nanomaterials for cardiac tissue engineering.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- The Progress of Stem Cell Therapy in Myocardial-Infarcted Heart Regeneration: Cell Sheet Technology.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022Review
- MIL-125-based nanocarrier decorated with Palladium complex for targeted drug delivery.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Mitigating challenges and expanding the future of vascular tissue engineering-are we there yet?Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Vitamin D and curcumin-loaded PCL nanofibrous for engineering osteogenesis and immunomodulatory scaffold.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most arduous challenges in tissue engineering is neovascularization, without which there is a lack of nutrients delivered to a target tissue. Angiogenesis should be completed at an optimal density and within an appropriate period of time to prevent cell necrosis. Failure to meet this challenge brings about poor functionality for the tissue in comparison with the native tissue, extensively reducing cell viability. Prior studies devoted to angiogenesis have provided researchers with some biomaterial scaffolds and cell choices for angiogenesis. For example, while most current angiogenesis approaches require a variety of stimulatory factors ranging from biomechanical to biomolecular to cellular, some other promising stimulatory factors have been underdeveloped (such as electrical, topographical, and magnetic). When it comes to choosing biomaterial scaffolds in tissue engineering for angiogenesis, key traits rush to mind including biocompatibility, appropriate physical and mechanical properties (adhesion strength, shear stress, and malleability), as well as identifying the appropriate biomaterial in terms of stability and degradation profile, all of which may leave essential trace materials behind adversely influencing angiogenesis. Nevertheless, the selection of the best biomaterial and cells still remains an area of hot dispute as such previous studies have not sufficiently classified, integrated, or compared approaches. To address the aforementioned need, this review article summarizes a variety of natural and synthetic scaffolds including hydrogels that support angiogenesis. Furthermore, we review a variety of cell sources utilized for cell seeding and influential factors used for angiogenesis with a concentrated focus on biomechanical factors, with unique stimulatory factors. Lastly, we provide a bottom-to-up overview of angiogenic biomaterials and cell selection, highlighting parameters that need to be addressed in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.