Additive Manufacturing for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Perspective for Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
Rider P., Kačarević ŽP., Alkildani S., Retnasingh S., Schnettler R., Barbeck M.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Int J Mol Sci (2018)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 30355988
- PMCID
- PMC6274711
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms19113308
- Citations
- 40
Abstract (original English)
Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become an important tool in the field of tissue engineering and its further development will lead to completely new clinical possibilities. The ability to create tissue scaffolds with controllable characteristics, such as internal architecture, porosity, and interconnectivity make it highly desirable in comparison to conventional techniques, which lack a defined structure and repeatability between scaffolds. Furthermore, 3D printing allows for the production of scaffolds with patient-specific dimensions using computer-aided design. The availability of commercially available 3D printed permanent implants is on the rise; however, there are yet to be any commercially available biodegradable/bioresorbable devices. This review will compare the main 3D printing techniques of: stereolithography; selective laser sintering; powder bed inkjet printing and extrusion printing; for the fabrication of biodegradable/bioresorbable bone tissue scaffolds; and, discuss their potential for dental applications, specifically augmentation of the alveolar ridge.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.