Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38544981›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Bioprinting of gelatin-based materials for orthopedic application.

Yusuf Olatunji Waidi, Ishaq Kariim, Sudipto Datta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Yusuf Olatunji WaidiIndian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India.
Ishaq KariimNelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania.
Sudipto DattaIndian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bio-printed hydrogels have evolved as one of the best regenerative medicine and tissue engineering platforms due to their outstanding cell-friendly microenvironment. A correct hydrogel ink formulation is critical for creating desired scaffolds that have better fidelity after printing. Gelatin and its derivatives have sparked intense interest in various biomedical sectors because of their biocompatibility, biodegradability, ease of functionalization, and rapid gelling tendency. As a result, this report emphasizes the relevance of gelatin-based hydrogel in fabricating bio-printed scaffolds for orthopedic applications. Starting with what hydrogels and bio-printing are all about. We further summarized the different gelatin-based bio-printing techniques explored for orthopedic applications, including a few recent studies. We also discussed the suitability of gelatin as a biopolymer for both 3D and 4D printing materials. As extrusion is one of the most widely used techniques for bio-printing gelatin-based, we summarize the rheological features of gelatin-based bio-ink. Lastly, we also elaborate on the recent bio-printed gelatin-based studies for orthopedics applications, the potential clinical translation issues, and research possibilities.

Indexed as

bioinksbioprintingbonegelatinscaffoldstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID38544981
PMCPMC10966130

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.