SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Critical Systematic Review of 3D Bioprinting in Biomedicine.
Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 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.
- Mastoid Obliteration After Canal Wall Down Mastoidectomy Using Tissue Engineering Approaches with Polymers, Mesenchymal Stem Cells, and Bioactive Molecules: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Formal Optimization-Oriented Design Framework for Predictive Extrusion-Based 3D Bioprinting.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recent advances in multimodal foundation model-enabled peptide screening and optimization for smart biomaterials and functional tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid development of 3D bioprinting technology has not been critically evaluated for its potential clinical applications… The ability of 3D manufacturing to create organ-like structures obscures the fact that the formed grafts are not physiologically relevant. We hypothesize that researchers do not use techniques that allow for the evaluation of the micro-architectonics of formed implants and mainly focus on biocompatibility and commonly observed immunological responses. This study aims to investigate the morphological landscape of the basics of 3D bioprinting through a systematic review of the outcomes of the experimental implantation of bioprinted constructs. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database using the following query: (bioprinting OR printing OR bioprinted OR printed OR bioinks) AND (cell OR cells) AND (implantation OR implanted OR in vivo) AND (goat OR porcine OR pig OR swine OR dog OR rabbit OR sheep) NOT (human OR humans). This systematic review evaluated the preformed studies of the in vivo assessment the 3D-bioprinted constructs, and 41 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. We concluded that 3D bioprinting has limited applications for forming living tissue for orthotopic implantation. Additionally, quantitative methods for evaluating the properties and morphological quality of implanted bioprinted constructs have not been developed for tissue engineering 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.