Evidence mapPaperPMID 41809174Full record

ArticleWorld journal of methodology2026

Innovative prospects in 3D printed bio-scaffolds for osteochondral tissue engineering: A systematic review.

Madhan Jeyaraman, Naveen Jeyaraman, Arulkumar Nallakumarasamy, Shrideavi Murugan, Sathish Muthu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Madhan JeyaramanDepartment of Orthopaedics, ACS Medical College and Hospital, Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Naveen JeyaramanDepartment of Orthopaedics, ACS Medical College and Hospital, Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Arulkumar NallakumarasamyDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, Agathisha Institute of Stemcell and Regenerative Medicine, Chennai 600030, Tamil Nadu, India.
Shrideavi MuruganDepartment of Orthopaedics, Government Tirunelveli Medical College and Hospital, Tirunelveli 627002, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sathish MuthuDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, Agathisha Institute of Stemcell and Regenerative Medicine, Chennai 600030, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvancements in 3D printing technologies have significantly transformed osteochondral tissue engineering, enabling the creation of scaffolds that closely mimic the structural and biological complexities of native tissue. These scaffolds provide a 3D environment conducive to cellular adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation while maintaining critical mechanical and biodegradable properties.

aimTo explore the feasibility of 3D printed scaffolds in osteochondral applications, highlights innovative materials and techniques, and addresses the existing knowledge gaps and challenges in clinical translation.

methodsThis scoping review adhered to PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guidelines to systematically map innovations in 3D printed bio-scaffolds for osteochondral tissue engineering. Due to heterogeneous data, it favored a scoping over systematic or meta-analytic approaches. The review aimed to identify innovations in scaffold materials, fabrication techniques, and translational strategies. Key questions addressed bioprinting methods, scaffold designs, and translational challenges. Studies included were in English, peer-reviewed, and focused on 3D printed scaffolds for osteochondral repair. Exclusions were non-osteochondral, non-3D fabrication studies, grey literature, editorials, and non-English papers. Literature was sourced from six databases using comprehensive keywords and Boolean operators. Backward citation tracking added relevant studies; no date limits were applied. Screening followed a four-phase selection process with dual independent reviewers. Data were charted thematically without bias assessment, focusing on methods, outcomes, and future gaps.

resultsThe fabrication of biomimetic scaffolds, incorporating bioactive elements such as growth factors, has shown promise in replicating the extracellular matrix and enhancing tissue regeneration. Cutting-edge techniques, including inkjet, extrusion-based, and laser-assisted bioprinting, allow precise spatial control and multi-material integration essential for osteochondral scaffolds. Innovations such as graded scaffolds and bio-inks enriched with nanoparticles have further improved scaffold functionality, mechanical stability, and biological activity. Despite these advancements, limitations persist, including material challenges in achieving the desired balance of bioactivity, biodegradability, and mechanical properties. Fabrication methods face issues of scalability, reproducibility, and resolution, while the long-term biological interactions between scaffolds and host tissues, particularly degradation products, remain underexplored. Regulatory and economic barriers also impede clinical translation, underscoring the need for collaborative research efforts. Future directions emphasize the potential of emerging technologies, such as 4D printing, smart biomaterials, and soundwave patterning, to address current challenges and unlock new opportunities.

conclusionThe convergence of biomaterial science, additive manufacturing, and regenerative medicine holds immense promise for advancing personalized treatments and revolutionizing osteochondral tissue engineering.

Indexed as

3D printingCartilageExtracellular matrixOsteochondral tissue engineeringTissue engineers

Identifiers

PMID41809174
PMCPMC12968776

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.