ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
The application of tissue engineering in cartilage regeneration: technological advances and future challenges.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. 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.
- Article
- Review
- Auricular cartilage tissue engineering: from making cartilage to regenerating a shape-stable elastic organ.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cartilage tissue, owing to its avascular, aneural, and alymphatic nature, possesses a highly limited capacity for self-repair. Damage caused by trauma, degenerative diseases, or congenital malformations seldom heals spontaneously, constituting a long-standing clinical challenge in orthopedic and plastic surgery. Tissue engineering offers a promising strategy for cartilage regeneration by combining seed cells, biomaterial scaffolds, and bioactive molecules to construct substitutes that recapitulate the structure and function of native cartilage. The evolution of biomaterials and scaffold design is traced from natural and synthetic polymers to decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM), nanocomposite scaffolds, and stimuli-responsive hydrogel systems. Advances in biomanufacturing are examined in parallel, with particular attention to the role of 3D/4D bioprinting in fabricating architecturally complex tissue constructs, as well as the contributions of electrospinning and cell sheet engineering. Moving beyond materials and fabrication, the ongoing transition from cell-based regeneration toward cell-free approaches, particularly exosome-mediated endogenous repair and organoid-based micro-tissue construction, is discussed, alongside biomimetic design strategies such as gradient scaffolds, physically responsive scaffolds, and vascular-immune microenvironment regulation. Critical barriers to clinical translation are also identified, including manufacturing costs, process standardization, long-term efficacy and safety validation, patient stratification, and regulatory pathways. The review concludes by outlining future directions such as multi-technology convergence, endogenous regeneration strategies, and the development of off-the-shelf products, with the aim of providing a systematic reference for research and clinical translation in this rapidly evolving field.
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.