ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2013
Nanoporosity significantly enhances the biological performance of engineered glass tissue scaffolds.
Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03786302 (Comparison of the Regenerative Ability of Tailored Amorphous Multiporous Bioglass and Biodentine in Pulpotomized Primary Teeth), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.
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.
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.
Comparison of the Regenerative Ability of Tailored Amorphous Multiporous Bioglass and Biodentine in Pulpotomized Primary Teeth
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tailored 70S30C Bioactive glass induces severe inflammation as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Trial
- Biological Characterization of 3D-Printed, Sintered Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds Obtained by Fused Filament Fabrication: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Tailoring and characterization of bioactive graft material for alveolar bone preservation and regeneration in fresh extraction sockets of dog model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sol-Gel Derived Gelatin-Bioactive Glass Nanocomposite Biomaterials Incorporating Calcium Chloride and Calcium Ethoxide.Polymers · 2024Article
- Micro-porous PLGA/Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Article
- Visualization of porosity and pore size gradients in electrospun scaffolds using laser metrology.PloS one · 2023Article
- Cells and material-based strategies for regenerative endodontics.Bioactive materials · 2022Review
- Effects of Titanium Implant Surface Topology on Bone Cell Attachment and Proliferation in vitro.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Potential of tailored amorphous multiporous calcium silicate glass for pulp capping regenerative endodontics-A preliminary assessment.Journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Nanostructure of bioactive glass affects bone cell attachment via protein restructuring upon adsorption.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Can an InChI for Nano Address the Need for a Simplified Representation of Complex Nanomaterials across Experimental and Nanoinformatics Studies?Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Recent advances and future perspectives of sol-gel derived porous bioactive glasses: a review.RSC advances · 2020Review
- Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles: Recent Advances in Tissue Engineering.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Review
- Effect of bioactive glass nanoparticles on biological properties of PLGA/collagen scaffold.Progress in biomaterials · 2018Article
- Role of phase separation on the biological performance of 45S5 BioglassJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2017Article
- Modification of resin modified glass ionomer cement by addition of bioactive glass nanoparticles.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2016Article
- Evaluation of bioactivity and biodegradability of a biomimetic soft tissue scaffold for clinical use: AnJournal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
- Nanomaterials, inflammation, and tissue engineering.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnologyReview
- The importance of factorial design in tissue engineering and biomaterials science: Optimisation of cell seeding efficiency on dermal scaffolds as a case study.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nanoporosity is known to impact the performance of implants and scaffolds such as bioactive glass (BG) scaffolds, either by providing a higher concentration of bioactive chemical species from enhanced surface area, or due to inherent nanoscale topology, or both. To delineate the role of these two characteristics, BG scaffolds have been fabricated with nearly identical surface area (81 and 83±2 m(2)/g) but significantly different pore size (av. 3.7 and 17.7 nm) by varying both the sintering temperature and the ammonia concentration during the solvent exchange phase of the sol-gel fabrication process. In vitro tests performed with MC3T3-E1 preosteoblast cells on such scaffolds show that initial cell attachment is increased on samples with the smaller nanopore size, providing the first direct evidence of the influence of nanopore topography on cell response to a bioactive structure. Furthermore, in vivo animal tests in New Zealand rabbits (subcutaneous implantation) indicate that nanopores promote colonization and cell penetration into these scaffolds, further demonstrating the favorable effects of nanopores in tissue-engineering-relevant BG scaffolds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.