ReviewRegenerative therapy2026
Stimuli-responsive 4D-bioprinted constructs for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration: Shape-morphing mechanisms, cell-laden bioink engineering, and preclinical outcomes.
Review in Regenerative therapy, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Musculoskeletal disorders impose a substantial global disability burden. Conventional 3D bioprinting cannot replicate the dynamic, anisotropic architecture of bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle, and cardiac muscle. Four-dimensional (4D) bioprinting addresses this by integrating stimuli-responsive materials into constructs, enabling programmed shape transformation and adaptive behavior following implantation. Methods: This narrative review examines primary experimental research on stimuli-responsive 4D-bioprinted musculoskeletal constructs, drawing on in vitro, in vivo, and combined outcomes from leading peer-reviewed journals. Results: Evidence spans four stimuli modalities - magnetic actuation, near-infrared (NIR) photothermal response, thermoresponsive swelling-shrinking transitions, and shape memory polymer (SMP) recovery - applied across bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle, and cardiac constructs. Bioink formulations from silk fibroin-gelatin composites and alginate-polydopamine inks to GelMA-based hydrogels and polyester SMPs present trade-offs between printability, shape fidelity, and cellular compatibility. Cross-study synthesis identifies stiffness trajectory, architectural anisotropy, and dynamic deformation as primary mechano-biological axes directing cell fate decisions. Preclinical studies document encouraging ossification and chondrogenesis outcomes, though constructs fall short of native tissue mechanical benchmarks. Conclusion: Translational barriers range from fundamental physical constraints - including the mechanical performance gap and stimulus penetration depth limitations - to incremental engineering challenges amenable to near-term resolution. Passive hydration-driven deployment represents the most clinically tractable strategy, while multifunctional bioinks integrating stimuli-responsiveness, bioactive factor presentation, and cell-instructive surface chemistry define the primary material development direction.
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.