Advancements and Challenges in Hydrogel Engineering for Regenerative Medicine
Omidian H., Chowdhury SD., Wilson RL.
Narrative Review, published in Gels (2024) — 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
- Gels (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38667657
- PMCID
- PMC11049258
- DOI
- 10.3390/gels10040238
- Citations
- 18
Abstract (original English)
This manuscript covers the latest advancements and persisting challenges in the domain of tissue engineering, with a focus on the development and engineering of hydrogel scaffolds. It highlights the critical role of these scaffolds in emulating the native tissue environment, thereby providing a supportive matrix for cell growth, tissue integration, and reducing adverse reactions. Despite significant progress, this manuscript emphasizes the ongoing struggle to achieve an optimal balance between biocompatibility, biodegradability, and mechanical stability, crucial for clinical success. It also explores the integration of cutting-edge technologies like 3D bioprinting and biofabrication in constructing complex tissue structures, alongside innovative materials and techniques aimed at enhancing tissue growth and functionality. Through a detailed examination of these efforts, the manuscript sheds light on the potential of hydrogels in advancing regenerative medicine and the necessity for multidisciplinary collaboration to navigate the challenges ahead.
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.