Publishing Disclaimer: In all of its publications and products, Military Review presents professional information. However, the views expressed therein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Army University, the Department of the Army, or any other agency of the U.S. government.

---

 

Regeneration in Expeditionary Trauma Care

Unlocking the Hidden Potential of the Human Tooth

 

Maj. Brandi N. Gervais, DDS, US Army

 

Download the PDF

 

Future conflicts will challenge the Army’s medical system in ways not seen in decades. Large-scale combat operations (LSCO) may limit air evacuation, disrupt ground routes, and force medical teams to care for severely wounded soldiers far longer than current doctrine anticipates. In a contested environment, the assumption that casualties can be quickly moved to higher levels of care may no longer hold true.¹ The Army excels at stabilizing casualties—stopping bleeding, preventing shock, and keeping soldiers alive long enough to reach surgery—but stabilization alone does not repair the deeper damage caused by blasts, gunshots, and crushing injuries. These wounds often involve bone loss, nerve damage, and destroyed soft tissue and require more than preservation of life. They require early support for the body’s natural healing processes.

Regenerative medicine offers a way to bridge this gap. At its core, regenerative medicine uses stem cells, the body’s natural repair cells. Unlike regular cells that have one job, stem cells can transform into different types of tissue and release signals that help coordinate healing. This makes them uniquely valuable in trauma, where multiple tissue types are often damaged at once.

One of the more promising sources of stem cells for military use comes from an unexpected place: the wisdom tooth (or third molar). Inside the nerve-rich soft tissue at the center of the tooth are dental pulp stem cells (DPSC). These cells can help the body rebuild bone, support nerve recovery, encourage new blood vessel growth, and calm inflammation.² Wisdom tooth extraction is one of the most common procedures in routine dental practice, with national clinical guidelines identifying it as a standard component of dental care; the Army is no exception as wisdom teeth are a common source of D-DNBI (dental-disease nonbattlefield injury) on the battlefield.³ These teeth, normally discarded, contain a renewable and ethically uncomplicated source of stem cells that could be collected, stored, and used in trauma care.⁴ The wisdom tooth—something most soldiers never think twice about—may hold the key to a new era of battlefield medicine. This creates an opportunity to build a scalable biobank of DPSCs without adding any burden to soldiers.

This article proposes a field-ready trauma repair kit built around DPSCs and simple, rugged materials that Role 2 and Role 3 medical teams can use to begin healing early—even before evacuation. The goal is not to replace surgery but to preserve tissue, protect the wound, and improve long-term outcomes. This concept aligns with Army Futures Command’s modernization priorities, supports the Joint Concept for Health Services, and offers a practical pathway for enhancing medical autonomy in LSCO environments.⁵

Scientific Foundation of DPSCs

The dental pulp is the soft core of the tooth that contains nerves, blood vessels, and connective tissue. Within this nerve-rich environment are DPSCs, which help the tooth repair itself after injury. These cells are powerful because they can support several types of healing at once. Research shows that DPSCs can help form new bone, encourage new blood vessels to grow, and support nerve repair.⁶ They also release natural signals that reduce inflammation, which is critical in the early stages of trauma when swelling can worsen tissue damage.

DPSCs have demonstrated measurable advantages over other stem cell sources. In one study, DPSCs produced significantly more bone tissue than bone marrow stem cells when placed on the same scaffold material.⁷ Another study found that DPSCs have a higher proliferation rate than adipose stem cells.⁸ These findings matter because bone marrow and adipose stem cells are widely used in civilian regenerative medicine. DPSCs matching or outperforming them suggests strong potential for military trauma care.

DPSCs also show promise in nerve-related injuries. In preclinical models, DPSCs released higher levels of nerve-supporting molecules than other stem cell types and helped preserve nerve function after injury.⁹ This is particularly relevant for blast trauma, where nerve damage is common and often contributes to long-term disability.

Unlike other stem cell sources, DPSCs are easy to obtain. Bone marrow stem cells require an invasive procedure, and fat-derived stem cells require specialized equipment. DPSCs, by contrast, can be collected during wisdom tooth extractions.¹⁰ This makes them practical, scalable, and ethically straightforward. DPSCs do not replace surgery, but they do act as biological force multipliers, helping preserve tissue and improving the body’s ability to recover once definitive care becomes available.

Third Molars as a Strategic Stem Cell Source

In the United States, approximately ten million third molars are extracted from about five million patients each year, making wisdom tooth removal one of the most common surgical procedures performed nationwide.¹¹ The scale of extraction is significant, and the Army is no exception as third-molar removal is a routine component of dental care across a soldier’s career, including accession and predeployment processing. This creates a unique opportunity for the Army to collect DPSCs without adding any additional burden to soldiers or dental teams. Even if only a fraction of these teeth were collected, the Army could build one of the largest stem cell biobanks in the world—without adding any new procedures. Each third molar contains enough pulp tissue to isolate thousands to tens of thousands of viable DPSCs.¹² These cells can be expanded in controlled environments, meaning a single tooth could ultimately yield millions of cells suitable for regenerative applications.

In LSCO environments this scale matters, where casualty numbers may be high and resupply uncertain, having a robust, preexisting biobank ensures that regenerative materials are available when needed. It also supports the development of universal donor lines, where DPSCs are modified to reduce immune rejection and can be used across the force. The Army already has the infrastructure—dental clinics, accession pipelines, and medical logistics systems—to support this effort. The missing piece is simply recognizing the strategic value of a resource we already collect.

Expeditionary Trauma Repair Kit

The trauma repair kit would be designed for Role 2 and Role 3 surgical teams operating in austere environments, consistent with Army doctrine describing these echelons as forward surgical capabilities functioning under resource-limited conditions.¹³ Its purpose will not be to replace surgery but to begin meaningful biological repair at the point of stabilization. In LSCO environments where evacuation may be delayed or denied, the ability to start healing early becomes a distinct advantage. At the center of the kit will be DPSCs, which are uniquely valuable as they can shift into different types of repair cells depending on the injury. Bone regrowth is one example but far from the only. DPSCs can also support the repair of soft tissue, encourage new blood vessel formation, and release signals that help calm inflammation and protect nerve tissue.¹⁴ These capabilities make them relevant not only for fractures but also for injuries involving skin loss, muscle damage, nerve disruption, and even certain aspects of traumatic brain injury.

Bone regeneration remains one of the clearest demonstrations of their potential. When DPSCs are paired with a supportive scaffold—a framework that gives cells something to attach to—they can help the body begin rebuilding bone in areas where it normally cannot heal on its own. In some studies, DPSCs supported up to 70 percent new bone formation in critical-size defects.¹⁵ This is particularly important for blast injuries, which often leave gaps in bone that require more than stabilization.

But the same principle also applies to other tissues. In soft-tissue wounds, DPSCs help reduce inflammation and support early tissue formation. In nerve-related injuries, they release natural growth signals that protect damaged nerve fibers. In each scenario, the goal is the same: preserve as much healthy tissue as possible and give the body a head start on healing.

The trauma repair kit will bring these capabilities into a field-ready format. Cryopreserved DPSC vials will provide the biological foundation; scaffolds will act as the structural framework for new tissue growth; hydrogels will serve as carriers that keep the cells alive and allow them to be placed precisely where they are needed; and regenerative boosters will supply additional signals that encourage bone, nerve, or blood vessel formation. A portable container will maintain cell viability during transport, and simple instructional cards will guide medics and surgical teams through each step of the straightforward application process. For example,

• Bone loss: The medical team places a scaffold into the defect, apply DPSCs suspended in hydrogel, adds a regenerative booster, and stabilizes the limb.
• Soft-tissue wound: The same hydrogel-based approach can be used to protect exposed tissue and encourage early repair.
• Nerve-related injuries: DPSCs can be applied to help preserve nerve function and reduce secondary damage.

This capability aligns with the realities of prolonged field care, where medical teams may need to maintain wounded soldiers for extended periods with limited resources. By enabling early biological repair across multiple tissue types—not just bone—the trauma repair kit enhances survivability, preserves function, and reduces the long-term burden on the medical system.

Logistics and Field Sustainment

Operational viability depends not only on scientific merit but also on logistical feasibility. The trauma repair kit must be modular, ruggedized, and compatible with existing medical supply chains. Each component should also be prepackaged in sterile, vacuum-sealed units with standardized labeling.

Cryopreserved DPSCs can be stored in portable liquid nitrogen containers for extended missions, while DPSC-derived secretome or exosomes (the specific growth factors and proteins) can be formulated in freezedried formats for environments where cold-chain support is limited.¹⁶ Scaffold materials and reagents should be housed in waterproof, shock-resistant containers with embedded tracking systems. Passive cooling systems can extend viability in austere environments, reducing reliance on generator-based cold chain logistics. Maintenance protocols should include viability checks, expiration tracking, and inventory audits. Training should be integrated into predeployment rotations, with simulated applications incorporated into medical education curricula.¹⁷

Resupply should be integrated into existing Class VIII workflows, with trauma kits categorized under regenerative adjuncts.¹⁸ Role 3 facilities can serve as replenishment hubs, while Role 2 teams carry mission-specific modules based on injury profiles and terrain. Future iterations could include drone-delivered resupply pods or autonomous bioreactors capable of on-site cell expansion.¹⁹

Training and Doctrine Integration

For the trauma repair kit to be successfully adopted, it must be integrated into existing training pipelines and doctrinal frameworks. The Tactical Combat Medical Care curriculum offers an ideal platform for introducing regenerative trauma concepts.²⁰ Simulation-based training can reinforce procedural confidence and allow for iterative skill development. In addition, cross-training between dental specialists and combat medics is also essential. Dental personnel are uniquely positioned to support DPSC harvesting and biobanking. By training dental specialists in scaffold preparation and hydrogel delivery, as well as educating medics on regenerative adjuncts, the Army can build a multidisciplinary trauma response capability.

Doctrinal integration should follow training implementation. The trauma kit concept aligns with existing publications like Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 4-02.5, Casualty Care, and ATP 4-02.55, Army Health System Support Planning.²¹ Future updates could include regenerative trauma protocols, DPSC biobanking procedures, and guidelines for regenerative adjuncts. The Joint Trauma System could incorporate regenerative tools into its clinical practice guidelines.

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

The introduction of a DPSC-powered trauma repair kit requires careful attention to ethical and regulatory responsibilities. Soldiers must be informed of how their extracted tissue may be used, and consent must be voluntary, clearly documented, and written in plain language.²² Privacy protections and options for withdrawal must be clearly outlined.

Safety and oversight are equally important. While DPSCs themselves are low risk, any future enhancements—such as gene-based regenerative boosters—must follow strict regulatory pathways. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, classifies gene-edited or gene-enhanced cell therapies under its biologics framework, requiring rigorous testing to ensure safety.²³ Military-specific pathways may be available during emergencies, but these must still operate under robust ethical oversight.

Data governance is another critical factor. Each DPSC sample must be linked to a secure, anonymized tracking system that records its origin, storage conditions, and clinical use. Oversight committees should regularly review biobank operations, audit compliance, and evaluate outcomes.²⁴ This governance structure ensures that regenerative resources are used responsibly and that lessons learned can inform future improvements.

Risk If the Army Does Not Adopt Regenerative Trauma Care

Future conflicts will not resemble the medical environments of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army’s current trauma system was built around rapid evacuation, abundant surgical capacity, and predictable logistics; LSCO will challenge all three.²⁵ If the Army does not adopt regenerative trauma capabilities, several operational risks can emerge.

Long-term disability. Blast trauma, high-velocity gunshot wounds, and crushing injuries often destroy bone, nerves, and soft tissue in ways that cannot heal without biological support. Without early regenerative intervention, these injuries frequently result in limb loss, chronic pain, or permanent functional impairment. An updated analyses of 4,275 service members with severe lower-extremity trauma show that more than 40 percent required four or more hospitalizations and that patients averaged over two hundred outpatient visits; most of the visits occurred within the first year and involved rehabilitation, underscoring the heavy long-term recovery burden associated with these injuries.²⁶ Failure to support early tissue preservation will increase this burden dramatically in LSCO.

Overburdening surgical capacity. In prolonged field care scenarios, surgical teams may face multiple casualties with complex wounds. Without regenerative tools that preserve tissue and stabilize the wound biologically, more casualties will require extensive reconstruction later. This increases operative time, resource consumption, and the number of surgical interventions per patient.

Reduced return-to-duty rates. Regenerative medicine has the potential to preserve function in ways traditional stabilization cannot. If the Army does not adopt these capabilities, return-to-duty rates will remain limited by the severity of tissue destruction. In previous conflicts, only 11 percent of major limb injuries returned to duty.²⁷ Without regenerative support, this number is unlikely to improve.

Strategic disadvantage. Peer competitors are investing heavily in regenerative medicine, battlefield biologics, and rapid-healing technologies. China, for example, has established dedicated military regenerative medicine research facilities and is integrating advanced biotechnology into its People’s Liberation Army’s modernization efforts.²⁸ If the US military does not modernize its trauma care system, it risks falling behind adversaries who can return wounded personnel to the fight faster and with fewer long-term disabilities.

Missed opportunity. Finally, because retained or symptomatic third molars are a common source of dental emergencies during deployment, the Army routinely performs third-molar extractions as part of its standard dental readiness.²⁹ Without a regenerative program, this tissue—and the DPSCs inside—will continue to be discarded. The Army would lose access to a renewable, ethically uncomplicated biological resource that could dramatically improve trauma outcomes. Failing to adopt regenerative trauma care is not simply a missed innovation—it is a strategic vulnerability.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of a DPSC-Powered Trauma Repair Kit

A regenerative trauma repair kit built around DPSCs offers a favorable cost-benefit profile, especially when compared to the long-term financial and operational burden of severe combat injuries. The primary costs include establishing a DPSC biobank, developing ruggedized trauma kits, and training medical personnel. These costs are modest compared to other modernization efforts. For example, the cost of processing and banking a single DPSC sample is estimated at $250–$600, far lower than the cost of bone marrow harvesting or advanced biologics.³⁰

Combat injuries involving bone loss, nerve damage, or soft-tissue destruction are among the most expensive medical conditions in the military. A single limb salvage case can cost over $640,000 over an amputee’s lifetime.³¹ Other published estimates place lifetime healthcare costs for lower-extremity amputation at approximately $509,000; however, legal and economic analyses note that when long-term prosthetic replacement, rehabilitation, and lost wages are included, total lifetime costs can far exceed this initial figure.³² Regenerative interventions that preserve tissue early can reduce the need for multiple surgeries, shorten rehabilitation time, and decrease long-term disability costs.

The trauma repair kit enhances survivability and preserves function, increasing the likelihood that wounded soldiers can return to duty. Even a modest improvement in return-to-duty rates—for example, increasing from 13 to 20 percent—would represent a significant operational gain in LSCO environments where manpower is strained.

Ultimately, the kit could reduce the burden on surgical teams by improving wound condition before definitive care. This can shorten operative time, reduce the need for complex reconstruction, and improve throughput during mass-casualty events. If regenerative interventions prevent even a small percentage of amputations or severe disabilities, the program pays for itself many times over. The long-term savings in medical care, disability compensation, and lost readiness far exceed the initial investment.

Future Capabilities and Vision

The trauma repair kit represents a starting point, not an endpoint. As regenerative medicine continues to advance, the Army has an opportunity to shape the future of battlefield care in ways that fundamentally change survivability and long-term recovery. One promising direction is the development of autonomous bioreactors—compact devices capable of growing or refreshing stem cells in the field.³³ These systems could maintain a ready supply of DPSCs during extended operations, reducing reliance on prepackaged vials and enabling real-time customization based on injury type.

Another emerging capability involves drone-delivered regenerative payloads.³⁴ Unmanned systems could transport stem cell modules, scaffolds, and regenerative boosters to remote or contested locations where traditional resupply routes are compromised. This approach aligns with Army Futures Command’s vision for autonomous logistics and distributed sustainment.

Artificial intelligence-enabled systems could also offer transformative potential. These systems could analyze injury patterns, imaging data, and environmental conditions to recommend the optimal combination of scaffolds, hydrogels, and regenerative boosters.³⁵ This decision-support capability would reduce cognitive load on medics and surgical teams, ensuring consistent application even under stress.

Looking further ahead, the Army could explore universal donor stem cell lines—cells engineered to be compatible with any soldier, regardless of blood type or genetic background. While this concept requires careful oversight, it would eliminate the need for individualized matching and dramatically simplify logistics. These future capabilities align with the Army’s broader push toward medical autonomy, distributed sustainment, and expeditionary resilience.³⁶ They support a vision in which forward medical teams are not limited to stabilization but are empowered to initiate restoration.

Conclusion

The DPSC-powered trauma repair kit offers a transformative leap in expeditionary trauma care. By harnessing stem cells from routinely extracted third molars, enhancing them through regenerative adjuncts, and delivering them via adaptable scaffolds, this concept bridges emerging science with operational necessity. It provides a way for medical teams to begin healing earlier, preserve more tissue, and improve long-term outcomes even when evacuation is delayed or denied.

This capability aligns with Army modernization priorities, supports doctrinal evolution, and strengthens the resilience of the force. It empowers Role 2 and Role 3 surgical teams to move beyond stabilization and initiate restoration, giving wounded soldiers a better chance not only to survive but to also recover.

Regenerative medicine is no longer a distant possibility. It is a near-term opportunity—one that leverages existing workflows, requires minimal additional burden, and offers significant operational payoff. The wisdom tooth, an anatomical structure often overlooked, may become a cornerstone of future trauma care. The Army has an opportunity to lead the world in regenerative battlefield medicine. The question is not whether this capability is possible, it is whether we will seize the chance to build it now before the next conflict demands it.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Defense Health Agency, the Department of War, or the US government.

---

Notes

1. US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) G-2, Operational Environment and Threats (2021–2030): Great Power Competition, Crisis, and Conflict (TRADOC G-2, 2021), 5, 10–11, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1156584.pdf.
2. Masako Miura et al., “SHED: Stem Cells from Human Exfoliated Deciduous Teeth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 10 (2003): 5807–12, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0937635100; Stan Gronthos et al., “Postnatal Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSCs) in Vitro and in Vivo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, no. 25 (2000): 13625–30, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.240309797; Bruna Lopes et al., “Neuronal Differentiation and Exosome Profiling of Dental Pulp Stem Cells: Unveiling Their Potential for Nerve Repair,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26, no. 19 (2025): 9723, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26199723; Riccardo d’Aquino et al., “Human Mandible Bone Defect Repair by the Grafting of Dental Pulp Stem/Progenitor Cells and Collagen Sponge Biocomplexes,” European Cells and Materials 18 (2009): 75–83, https://doi.org/10.22203/ecm.v018a07.
3. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), Management of Third Molar Teeth (AAOMS, 2016), https://aaoms.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/management_third_molar_white_paper.pdf; William Jackson Dunn, “Dental Emergency Rates at an Expeditionary Medical Support Facility Supporting Operation Enduring Freedom,” Military Medicine 169, no. 5 (2004): 349–53, https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED.169.5.349.
4. Ashraf Al Madhoun et al., “Dental Pulp Stem Cells Derived from Adult Human Third Molar Tooth: A Brief Review,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 9 (2021): 717624, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.717624.
5. Army Futures Command (AFC), 2021 Army Modernization Strategy: Investing in the Future (AFC, 2021), https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/about/2021_army_modernization_strategy.pdf; Joint Staff J-4, Joint Concept for Health Services (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2015).
6. Miura et al. “SHED”; Gronthos et al., “Postnatal Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells”; Lopes et al., “Neuronal Differentiation of Dental Pulp Stem Cells.”
7. Jinzhao Lyu et al., “Comparison of Osteogenic Potentials of Dental Pulp and Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Using the New Cell Transplantation Platform, CellSaic, in a Rat Congenital Cleft-Jaw Model,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 17 (2021): 9478, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22179478.
8. Alessia Ventura et al., “Comparative Analysis of Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells from Adipose Tissue and Dental Pulp: Phenotypic Characterization and Secretome Profiling,” Biology Direct 20 (2025): 11, https://www.doi.org/10.1186/s13062-025-00697-w.
9. Lopes et al., “Neuronal Differentiation of Dental Pulp Stem Cells.”
10. Sukumaran Anil et al., “Dental Pulp Stem Cells and Banking of Teeth as a Lifesaving Therapeutic Vista,” BIOCELL 47, no. 1 (2023): 71–80, https://doi.org/10.32604/biocell.2023.024334.
11. Kathryn P. Jehle, “Trends in Third Molar Extractions Utilizing BigMouth” (master’s thesis, University of Iowa, 2025), https://doi.org/10.25820/etd.007933.
12. Gronthos et al., “Postnatal Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells.”
13. Field Manual 4-02, Army Health System (US Government Publishing Office, 2020), 1-12–1-13.
14. FenYao Li et al., “Anti-inflammatory Effect of Dental Pulp Stem Cells,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 (2023): Article 1123456, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1284868.
15. Juan G. Gutierrez-Quintero et al., “Critical-Sized Mandibular Defect Reconstruction Using Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells in a Xenograft Model—Clinical, Radiological, and Histological Evaluation,” Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 24 (2020): 485–93, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-020-00862-7.
16. Malika A. Malik et al. “Viability of Dental Pulp Derived Stem Cells After Long-Term Cryopreservation,” Journal of Endodontics 51, no. 12 (2025): P1775–1782.e2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2025.09.014; Miao Zhang et al., “Freeze-Drying of Mammalian Cells Using Trehalose: Preservation of DNA Integrity,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 6198, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06542-z.
17. Michael Remley et al., Prolonged Casualty Care Guidelines, ed. Michael Remley and Dan Mosely, Joint Trauma System Clinical Practice Guideline 91 (Joint Trauma System, 2021), 42, https://jts.health.mil/assets/docs/cpgs/Prolonged_Casualty_Care_Guidelines_21_Dec_2021_ID91.pdf.
18. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5101.15, DoD Medical Materiel Management (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, 29 September 2023), 13, 17, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/510115p.pdf?ver=2017-11-14-112328-857.
19. AFC Pamphlet 71-20-12, Army Futures Command Concept for Medical 2028 (March 2022), https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/04/25/ac4ef855/medical-concept-2028-final-unclas.pdf.
20. “Tactical Combat Casualty Care,” National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, accessed 9 April 2026, https://www.naemt.org/education/trauma-education/naemt-tccc.
21. Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 4-02.5, Casualty Care (US Government Publishing Office [GPO], 2013); ATP 4-02.55, Army Health System Support Planning (US GPO, 2020).
22. DODI 6025.18, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule Compliance in DoD Health Care Programs (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 13 March 2019), https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/602518p.pdf?ver=2019-03-13-125803-017.
23. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs): Guidance for Industry (US Food and Drug Administration, January 2020), https://www.fda.gov/media/113760/download.
24. DODI 3216.02, Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD-Conducted and -Supported Research (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, April 2020), https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodi/321602p.pdf.
25. Eric Pelkey et al., “Death of the Golden Hour: Adapting the Army Health System for Denied Environments,” Pulse of Army Medicine, 1 July 2025, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Pulse-of-Army-Medicine/Archive/July-2025/Golden-Hour/.
26. Susan L. Eskridge et al., “Healthcare Utilization Among United States Service Members with Combat-Related Lower Extremity Limb Salvage,” Healthcare 13, no. 10 (2025): 1164, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13101164.
27. Jeffery Belisle et al., “Return-to-Duty Rates Among U.S. Military Combat-Related Amputees in the Global War on Terror: Job Description Matters,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 75, no. 2 (2013): 279–86, https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0b013e31829bb777.
28. Ang Li et al., “Military Regenerative Medicine,” Biomaterials Science 13, no. 23 (2025): 6562–71, https://www.doi.org/10.1039/d5bm01098e; International Security Advisory Board, Report on Biotechnology in the People’s Republic of China’s Military-Civil Fusion Strategy (US Department of State, November 2024), https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ISAB-Report-on-Biotechnology-in-the-PRC-MCF-Strategy_Final_Accessible.pdf.
29. Robert E. Langsten and William J. Dunn, “The Impact of Retained Third Molars on the Deployed Airman,” Military Medicine 173, suppl. 1 (January 2008): 27–28, https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED.173.Supplement_1.27.
30. James William, “How to Estimate Stem Cell Preservation Cost?,” La Maison D’Ambre, 25 March 2025, https://lamaisondambre.com/how-to-estimate-stem-cell-preservation-cost/.
31. Swetha Palli et al., “Impact of a Limb Salvage Program on the Economic Burden of Amputation in the United States,” Value in Health 19, no. 3 (2016): A45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.098.
32. John E. Hall Jr. and Wayne Satterfield, “Long-Term Amputation Costs,” Inside Medical Liability (Fourth Quarter, 2021): 41, 42, https://hallboothsmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Inside-Medical-Liability-John-Hall-and-Wayne-Satterfield-Jan-2022-compressed.pdf.
33. “Novel 3D-Printed, Single-Use, and Scalable Cell Expansion Bioreactor—Advanced Development and Demonstration in a Clinical Cell Manufacturing Environment,” Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium, 29 May 2025, https://mtec-sc.org/technology-showcase/novel-3d-printed-single-use-scalable-cell-expansion-bioreactor-advanced-development-demonstration.
34. Patty Nieberg, “Army Medics Moving Blood to the Frontlines with Drones,” Task and Purpose, 2 June 2025, https://taskandpurpose.com/news/drones-blood-supply-combat/.
35. Anand Ramachandran, “Revolutionizing Tissue Engineering: AI-Driven Innovations in Scaffold Design, Regenerative Medicine, and Industrial-Scale Manufacturing,” ResearchGate, accessed 14 April 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388527817_Revolutionizing_Tissue_Engineering_AI-Driven_Innovations_in_Scaffold_Design_Regenerative_Medicine_and_Industrial_Scale_Manufacturing.
36. AFC Pamphlet 71-20-12, Army Futures Command Concept for Medical 2028.

 

 

 

Back to Top

July-August 2026