Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41002828›Full record

ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Bioprinted Scaffolds for Biomimetic Applications: A State-of-the-Art Technology.

Ille C Gebeshuber, Sayak Khawas, Rishi Sharma, Neelima Sharma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Critical Systematic Review of 3D Bioprinting in Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

4 authors.

Ille C GebeshuberInstitute of Applied Physics, Vienna University of Technology, A-1040 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-8879-2302
Sayak KhawasDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi 835215, India.ORCID 0009-0007-2680-1112
Rishi SharmaDepartment of Physics, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi 835215, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3266-4568
Neelima SharmaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi 835215, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0245-6760

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review emphasizes the latest developments in bioprinted scaffolds in tissue engineering, with a focus on their biomimetic applications. The accelerated pace of development of 3D bioprinting technologies has transformed the ability to fabricate scaffolds with the potential to replicate the structure and function of native tissues. Bioprinting methods such as inkjet, extrusion-based, laser-assisted, and digital light processing (DLP) approaches have the potential to fabricate complex, multi-material structures with high precision in geometry, material composition, and cellular microenvironments. Incorporating biomimetic design principles to replicate the mechanical and biological behaviors of native tissues has been of major research interest. Scaffold geometries that support cell adhesion, growth, and differentiation essential for tissue regeneration are mainly of particular interest. The review also deals with the development of bioink, with an emphasis on the utilization of natural, synthetic, and composite materials for enhanced scaffold stability, printability, and biocompatibility. Rheological characteristics, cell viability, and the utilization of stimuli-responsive bioinks are also discussed in detail. Their utilization in bone, cartilage, skin, neural, and cardiovascular tissue engineering demonstrates the versatility of bioprinted scaffolds. Despite the significant advancements, there are still challenges that include achieving efficient vascularization, long-term integration with host tissues, and scalability. The review concludes by underlining future trends such as 4D bioprinting, artificial intelligence-augmented scaffold design, and the regulatory and ethical implications involved in clinical translation. By considering these challenges in detail, this review provides insight into the future of bioprinted scaffolds in regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

3D bioprintingbioinksbiomimetic scaffoldsregenerative medicinetissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID41002828
PMCPMC12467169

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.