ReviewRSC advances2026
The osteochondral regeneration paradox: why biomimetic scaffolds are biologically superior but injectable systems dominate the clinic.
Review in RSC advances, 2026. 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.
- Design Strategies to Target Joint Resident Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Osteochondral Regeneration.Cells · 2026Review
- Predicting Cell Differentiation in Mechanically Stimulated Biphasic Osteochondral Scaffolds Using Fluid-Structure Interaction Modelling.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), particularly articular cartilage injuries and the progression of osteoarthritis (OA), represent a substantial global health burden. Conventional techniques fail to consistently achieve durable regeneration, yielding biomechanically inferior fibrocartilage due to the native tissue's avascularity and complex zonal architecture. This review translates the critical biological, mechanical, and architectural requirements of the osteochondral unit into quantitative design targets and critically evaluates two major regenerative strategies: structurally precise architected biomimetic scaffolds and minimally invasive injectable hydrogels. Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off between technical potential and translational feasibility. Architected scaffolds, fabricated using advanced methods like 3D printing and melt electrowriting, demonstrate superior capacity to meet structural demands. They achieve precise zonal stiffness gradients, secure bone anchorage, and immediate high-load-bearing capability necessary for long-term chondrocyte phenotype stabilization and faithful tissue reconstruction. In contrast, injectable hydrogels excel in defect conformability, logistical simplicity, and microenvironmental programming (
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.