ReviewBioactive materials2026
Cell encapsulated biomaterials for translational medicine.
Review in Bioactive materials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Polymer-Based and Biomaterial Encapsulation of Probiotics for Improved Viability.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 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
Biomaterial supported cell encapsulation matrices have demonstrated superior properties for enhancing biological functionality, making them highly significant for translational medicine across multiple therapeutic applications. This review examined how biomaterials interact with cellular therapies, including stem cells, immune cells, and fibroblasts across single-cell, multicellular, and core-shell structures. The biomaterial capsule plays a key role in improving cell viability, immune protection, and supporting tissue-specific interactions. Furthermore, this review highlights current trends in microfluidics, 3D printing, in situ preparation, and electrospraying self-assembly, each method offering different advantages for cell encapsulation matrices. Microfluidics allows precise control of capsule size and uniformity, making it suitable for single-cell and core-shell encapsulation. The 3D printing technologies empower accurate cell placement to build multicellular structures that mimic native tissue organization. In situ preparation directly encapsulates cells within the target tissue. Collectively, these techniques significantly influence the physical, chemical, and biological properties of encapsulated cells. Additionally, we discuss various biomaterials including natural proteins, polysaccharides, and synthetic polymers, each material offers unique benefits in terms of biocompatibility and biodegradability. The integration of living cells with biomaterial matrix cell encapsulation systems greatly exhibits mechanical strength, high porosity, and controlled drug release. Importantly, this review emphasises the dual role of the biomaterial capsule in cancer therapy, which enhances anti-tumor immune responses and promotes tissue regeneration, with a focus on bone, skin, neural tissue, liver, vascular structures, and skeletal muscle repair. In conclusion, cell-encapsulated biomaterials are a versatile platform supporting both cancer immunotherapy and regenerative medicine, underscoring their wide range of biomedical applications.
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.