ArticleActa biomaterialia2013
A mechanism for effective cell-seeding in rigid, microporous substrates.
Article in Acta biomaterialia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmenting scaffolds with ingrown bone in micro-CT images: considerations of evaluation metrics and loss functions.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Granular osteoconductive biopolymer and predictive analysis of its physical property changes in maxillofacial surgery.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Impact of Particle Size and Sintering Temperature on Calcium Phosphate Gyroid Structure Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Regenerative Engineering of a Biphasic Patient-Fitted Temporomandibular Joint Condylar Prosthesis.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2023Article
- Gear-shaped carbonate apatite granules with a hexagonal macropore for rapid bone regeneration.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Study on the influence of scaffold morphology and structure on osteogenic performance.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- 3D-Printed HA-Based Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Microporosity, Osteoconduction and Osteoclastic Resorption.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Microporosities in 3D-Printed Tricalcium-Phosphate-Based Bone Substitutes Enhance Osteoconduction and Affect Osteoclastic Resorption.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Analysis of cell-biomaterial interaction through cellular bridge formation in the interface between hGMSCs and CaP bioceramics.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The Use of Nanomaterials in Tissue Engineering for Cartilage Regeneration; Current Approaches and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Reconsidering Osteoconduction in the Era of Additive Manufacturing.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2019Review
- Microporosity Clustering Assessment in Calcium Phosphate Bioceramic Particles.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Three-Dimensional Bone Substitutes for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Biological and Structural Characterization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2018Article
- Lattice Microarchitecture for Bone Tissue Engineering from Calcium Phosphate Compared to Titanium.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2018Article
- Effect of microporosity on scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.Regenerative biomaterials · 2018Review
- Osteoconductive Microarchitecture of Bone Substitutes for Bone Regeneration Revisited.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
- Functional and Biomimetic Materials for Engineering of the Three-Dimensional Cell Microenvironment.Chemical reviews · 2017Review
- Microsphere-Based Scaffolds in Regenerative Engineering.Annual review of biomedical engineering · 2017Review
- Micropore-induced capillarity enhances bone distribution in vivo in biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds.Acta biomaterialia · 2016Article
- Biomimetic gradient scaffold from ice-templating for self-seeding of cells with capillary effect.Acta biomaterialia · 2015Article
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
Seeding cells into porous ceramic substrates has been shown to improve outcomes in surgical repair of large bone defects, but the physics underlying cellular ingress into such scaffolds remains elusive. This paper demonstrates capillary forces as a novel, yet simple, self-loading or self-seeding mechanism for rigid, microporous substrates. Capillary forces were found to draw cells through a microporous network with interconnections smaller than the diameter of the cells in suspension. Work here emphasizes CaP-based bone scaffolds containing both macroporosity (>100μm) and microporosity (5-50μm); these have been shown to improve bone formation in vivo as compared to their macroporous counterparts and also performed better than microporous scaffolds containing BMP-2 by some measures of bone regeneration. We hypothesize that capillary force driven self-seeding in both macro- and micropores may underlie this improvement, and present a mathematical model and experiments that support this hypothesis. The cell localization and penetration depth within these two-dimensional substrates in vitro depends upon both the cell type (size and stiffness) and the capillary forces generated by the microstructure. Additional experiments showing that cell penetration depth in vitro depends on cell size and stiffness suggest that microporosity could be tailored to optimize cell infiltration in a cell-specific way. Endogenous cells are also drawn into the microporous network in vivo. Results have important implications for design of scaffolds for the healing of large bone defects, and for controlled release of drugs in vivo.
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.