↓ Skip to main content

Review of additive manufactured tissue engineering scaffolds: relationship between geometry and performance

Overview of attention for article published in Burns & Trauma, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
310 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review of additive manufactured tissue engineering scaffolds: relationship between geometry and performance
Published in
Burns & Trauma, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41038-018-0121-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Gleadall, Dafydd Visscher, Jing Yang, Daniel Thomas, Joel Segal

Abstract

Material extrusion additive manufacturing has rapidly grown in use for tissue engineering research since its adoption in the year 2000. It has enabled researchers to produce scaffolds with intricate porous geometries that were not feasible with traditional manufacturing processes. Researchers can control the structural geometry through a wide range of customisable printing parameters and design choices including material, print path, temperature, and many other process parameters. Currently, the impact of these choices is not fully understood. This review focuses on how the position and orientation of extruded filaments, which sometimes referred to as the print path, lay-down pattern, or simply "scaffold design", affect scaffold properties and biological performance. By analysing trends across multiple studies, new understanding was developed on how filament position affects mechanical properties. Biological performance was also found to be affected by filament position, but a lack of consensus between studies indicates a need for further research and understanding. In most research studies, scaffold design was dictated by capabilities of additive manufacturing software rather than free-form design of structural geometry optimised for biological requirements. There is scope for much greater application of engineering innovation to additive manufacture novel geometries. To achieve this, better understanding of biological requirements is needed to enable the effective specification of ideal scaffold geometries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 310 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 18%
Student > Bachelor 56 18%
Student > Master 49 16%
Researcher 23 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 4%
Other 32 10%
Unknown 82 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 91 29%
Materials Science 31 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 5%
Chemical Engineering 12 4%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 98 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
#5,190,504
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Burns & Trauma
#53
of 304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,181
of 341,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Burns & Trauma
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.