Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41003399›Full record

ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025

Recent Advances in 3D Bioprinting of Porous Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: A Narrative and Critical Review.

David Picado-Tejero, Laura Mendoza-Cerezo, Jesús M Rodríguez-Rego, Juan P Carrasco-Amador, Alfonso C Marcos-Romero

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Beyond monolayers: a comparative analysis of 2D cell cultures and 3DFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    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

5 authors.

David Picado-TejeroDepartamento de Expresión Gráfica, Escuela de Ingenierías Industriales, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.ORCID 0009-0000-4191-5328
Laura Mendoza-CerezoDepartamento de Expresión Gráfica, Escuela de Ingenierías Industriales, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2282-4409
Jesús M Rodríguez-RegoDepartamento de Expresión Gráfica, Escuela de Ingenierías Industriales, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4533-8067
Juan P Carrasco-AmadorDepartamento de Expresión Gráfica, Escuela de Ingenierías Industriales, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5177-3623
Alfonso C Marcos-RomeroDepartamento de Expresión Gráfica, Escuela de Ingenierías Industriales, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0882-4210

Funding

European Union through the Interreg VI-A Spain-Portugal Programme (POCTEP) 2021-2027. Project BIOIMP_ACE_MAS_6_E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D bioprinting has emerged as a key tool in tissue engineering by facilitating the creation of customized scaffolds with properties tailored to specific needs. Among the design parameters, porosity stands out as a determining factor, as it directly influences critical mechanical and biological properties such as nutrient diffusion, cell adhesion and structural integrity. This review comprehensively analyses the state of the art in scaffold design, emphasizing how porosity-related parameters such as pore size, geometry, distribution and interconnectivity affect cellular behavior and mechanical performance. It also addresses advances in manufacturing methods, such as additive manufacturing and computer-aided design (CAD), which allow the development of scaffolds with hierarchical structures and controlled porosity. In addition, the use of computational modelling, in particular finite element analysis (FEA), as an essential predictive tool to optimize the design of scaffolds under physiological conditions is highlighted. This narrative review analyzed 112 core articles retrieved primarily from Scopus (2014-2025) to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis. Despite recent progress, significant challenges persist, including the lack of standardized methodologies for characterizing and comparing porosity parameters across different studies. This review identifies these gaps and suggests future research directions, such as the development of unified characterization and classification systems and the enhancement of nanoscale resolution in bioprinting technologies. By integrating structural design with biological functionality, this review underscores the transformative potential of porosity research applied to 3D bioprinting, positioning it as a key strategy to meet current clinical needs in tissue engineering.

Indexed as

3D-bioprinting3D designbioinkporous scaffoldstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID41003399
PMCPMC12470888

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.