ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
3D bio-printed scaffolds and smart implants: evaluating functional performance in animal surgery models.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Congenital Heart Defect Treatments: Synergistic Approaches with Stem Cells and Functional Scaffolds.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Review
- Applications of Tailored Mesoporous Silicate Nanomaterials in Regenerative Medicine and Theranostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical models with an application of 3D bio-printed scaffolds and smart implants in animal surgery and their further applicability in regenerative medicine and implantology. This review discusses the functional performance of these advanced biomaterials in terms of mechanical properties, biodegradation rates, cellular responses, and in vivo integration. These 3D bio-printed scaffolds from hydrogels, bioceramics, and polymer composites feature tunable porosity (50-90%), mechanical strengths (0.1-50 MPa) and degradation rates compatible with bone, cartilage, and soft tissue engineering. Smart implants combining biosensors, drug delivery systems, and electrical stimulation in real time facilitate island operation of tissue regeneration. According to animal studies, titanium-based smart implants with surface-modified coatings show 86% osseointegration enhancement. In a rabbit knee model, gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) scaffolds for cartilage repair restored over 75% of native tissue function within 12 weeks. In rodent sciatic nerve defects, electrostimulated bio-scaffolds have induced a 40% increase in the rate of nerve regeneration. Concerning challenges, such as immune rejection and vascularization limitation, in addition to the demand for long-term stability, still require further improvements, including enhanced resolution of bioprinting technology and bioactive material offer. This review provides a critical assessment of qualitative and quantitative evidence to drive preclinical and translational studies in the wider context of precision medicine and next-generation, implantable biomaterials.
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.