ReviewFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Novelties and limitations of tissue-engineered materials in treating traumatic nerve injuries: a mini review.
Review in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Injectable microsphere-based delivery strategies for stem cells and their derivatives in tissue regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing of the Epineurium for Peripheral Nerve Repair: A Comprehensive Review of Novel Scaffolds for Nerve Conduits.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral nerve injuries remain challenging due to the limited regenerative capacity over long distances and the complexity of repair mechanisms. While autologous nerve grafts are the clinical gold standard, their use is restricted by donor-site morbidity and tissue availability. Tissue-engineered materials such as nerve guidance conduits (NGCs), hydrogels, and bioactive scaffolds offer alternative solutions by providing structural support and delivering trophic, immunomodulatory, or electrical cues. This mini-review categorizes these materials by their functional properties, including drug delivery, cell integration, and electroactivity, and critically assesses their preclinical performance and translational limitations. Natural materials such as collagen and chitosan exhibit good biocompatibility but limited mechanical stability and variability. Synthetic polymers and electroactive materials allow for customization and controlled stimulation but often provoke immune responses or degrade into harmful byproducts. Advanced drug-delivery systems using hydrogels and microspheres enable targeted factor release, yet reproducibility and kinetics remain critical barriers. Cell-integrated constructs, including Schwann cell-like cells and engineered neural tissue, offer high regenerative potential but face challenges in scalability, regulatory classification, and manufacturing. Importantly, many preclinical studies do not benchmark against autografts or address neuroma formation, fibrosis, and delayed regeneration-key issues in human lesions. A summary of preclinical constructs and translational barriers is provided to highlight recurring obstacles such as immune incompatibility, insufficient vascular integration, and regulatory hurdles. Future research must refine model systems, align regulatory strategies, and enhance construct functionality to enable effective clinical translation.
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.