Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22401817›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2012

Optimally porous and biomechanically compatible scaffolds for large-area bone regeneration.

Ami R Amini, Douglas J Adams, Cato T Laurencin, Syam P Nukavarapu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. iScience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Alveolar Bone Regeneration: Smart Biomaterials and Physical Stimulation.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Strategies forBiomedical reports · 2023
    Review
  20. Smart Orthopedic Biomaterials and Implants.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ami R AminiInstitute for Regenerative Engineering, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030, USA.
Douglas J Adams
Cato T Laurencin
Syam P Nukavarapu
UConn Health · US

Funding

Skeletal, Craniofacial and Oral Biology Training GrantT90DE021989 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI MINA, MINA · 2011 to 2022
$4.5M
NIDCR NIH HHS T90 DE021989
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-area or critical-sized bone defects pose a serious challenge in orthopedic surgery, as all current treatment options present with shortcomings. Bone tissue engineering offers a more promising alternative treatment strategy. However, this approach requires mechanically stable scaffolds that support homogenous bone formation throughout the scaffold thickness. Despite advances in scaffold fabrication, current scaffold-based techniques are unable to support uniform, three-dimensional bone regeneration, and are limited to only the scaffold surface in vitro and in vivo. This is mainly because of inadequate scaffold pore sizes (<200 μm) and accessible pore volume, and the associated limited oxygen diffusion and vascular invasion. In this study, we have adopted a method combining microsphere-sintering and porogen-leaching techniques to fabricate scaffolds with an increased accessible pore volume. Of the scaffolds developed, moderately porous poly(85 lactide-co-15 glycolide) (PLGA) microsphere scaffolds were selected as most advantageous, since they retain mechanical strength in the range of human cancellous bone and display a significantly higher accessible pore volume, which is attributed to an increased percentage of larger pores (i.e., size range 200-600 μm). Unlike control scaffolds with a limited pore size and an accessible pore volume, moderately porous scaffolds displayed increased oxygen diffusion, pre-osteoblast cell infiltration, proliferation, and survival throughout the entire scaffold. Furthermore, moderately porous PLGA microsphere scaffolds displayed enhanced and homogenous mineralization in vitro. Since these newly designed moderately porous scaffolds are weight bearing, are fully osteoconductive, and have the ability to support vascularization, they may serve as effective scaffolds for large-area bone defect repair/regeneration. In addition, this study demonstrates the ability to modulate scaffold porosity and, in turn, to develop oxygen tension-controlled matrices that are effective for large-area bone regeneration.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationTissue EngineeringAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaCalcification, PhysiologicCell LineCell ProliferationCell SurvivalHumansLactic AcidMiceMicrospheresOsteoblastsOxygenPolyglycolic AcidPolylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid CopolymerLactic AcidOxygenPolyglycolic AcidPolylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid Copolymer

Identifiers

PMID22401817
PMCPMC5802344
OpenAlexW2030922043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.