Scientists looked at how we build new tissue for the face and jaw. They found that most research uses a specific printing method called extrusion-based printing. This approach was the most common choice among the studies reviewed. Many of these projects also mix different materials to create stronger structures. About sixty percent of the work used these composite systems. However, the research has a clear gap. Most complex projects were tested only in a lab dish or on small animals. Very few studies looked at how these structures work in living humans. The focus was heavily on making the tissue look right or hold its shape. Researchers rarely checked if the new tissue actually helped patients recover their function. There was also very little attention given to helping new blood vessels grow into the new tissue. This is a critical need for any successful repair. The studies did not report safety issues or side effects because they were mostly lab work. The path to using these new techniques in hospitals depends on changing how we test them. We must move beyond just building strong structures. We need to prove these methods help people heal and function better in real life.
Extrusion-based printing dominates biofabrication for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction in scoping reviewBiofabrication strategies for face reconstruction show mixed progress in recent research
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This is a scoping review that mapped the landscape of biofabrication strategies for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, analyzing 107 studies published between 2010 and 2025. The authors synthesized findings on fabrication strategy distribution, material systems, and construct complexity. Extrusion-based printing was the most frequent approach, reported in 70.1% of studies, and composite material systems were used in 59.8% of studies. Complex multi-tissue constructs were investigated in 21.5% of studies but evaluated exclusively in vitro or in small animal models. Bio-additive incorporation predominantly focused on osteogenic enhancement, and outcome reporting favored structural characteristics over assessments of functional recovery.
The review identified key gaps and limitations. Research activity is clustered around a limited set of approaches, and relatively limited attention is paid to angiogenic support. Most complex multi-tissue constructs were evaluated only in vitro or in small animal models, and outcome reporting favored structural characteristics over functional recovery. The authors conclude that progress toward translation is likely to depend on closer integration of fabrication strategies, biological design considerations, and function-oriented evaluation frameworks. Practice relevance is restrained given the early stage of evidence and limited translational maturity.
View Original Abstract ↓
Machine Learning Model Performance for Predicting Contrast Induced Nephropathy in Coronary Interventions
Machine learning models help predict kidney damage during heart procedures
Related in Radiology & Imaging
From Other Specialties
