↓ Skip to main content

Advanced Bioinks for 3D Printing: A Materials Science Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Biomedical Engineering, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
350 Mendeley
Title
Advanced Bioinks for 3D Printing: A Materials Science Perspective
Published in
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10439-016-1638-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Chimene, Kimberly K. Lennox, Roland R. Kaunas, Akhilesh K. Gaharwar

Abstract

Advanced bioinks for 3D printing are rationally designed materials intended to improve the functionality of printed scaffolds outside the traditional paradigm of the "biofabrication window". While the biofabrication window paradigm necessitates compromise between suitability for fabrication and ability to accommodate encapsulated cells, recent developments in advanced bioinks have resulted in improved designs for a range of biofabrication platforms without this tradeoff. This has resulted in a new generation of bioinks with high print fidelity, shear-thinning characteristics, and crosslinked scaffolds with high mechanical strength, high cytocompatibility, and the ability to modulate cellular functions. In this review, we describe some of the promising strategies being pursued to achieve these goals, including multimaterial, interpenetrating network, nanocomposite, and supramolecular bioinks. We also provide an overview of current and emerging trends in advanced bioink synthesis and biofabrication, and evaluate the potential applications of these novel biomaterials to clinical use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 350 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Unknown 346 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 99 28%
Student > Master 77 22%
Researcher 48 14%
Unspecified 41 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Other 55 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 109 31%
Unspecified 61 17%
Materials Science 43 12%
Chemistry 35 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 9%
Other 70 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,075,640
of 12,356,791 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#232
of 1,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,145
of 271,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#7
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,356,791 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 271,003 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 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.