Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23672709›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2013

Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size.

Qiu Li Loh, Cleo Choong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 782 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
782citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

782 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

722 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Qiu Li LohDivision of Materials Technology, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University , Singapore, Singapore .
Cleo Choong

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue engineering applications commonly encompass the use of three-dimensional (3D) scaffolds to provide a suitable microenvironment for the incorporation of cells or growth factors to regenerate damaged tissues or organs. These scaffolds serve to mimic the actual in vivo microenvironment where cells interact and behave according to the mechanical cues obtained from the surrounding 3D environment. Hence, the material properties of the scaffolds are vital in determining cellular response and fate. These 3D scaffolds are generally highly porous with interconnected pore networks to facilitate nutrient and oxygen diffusion and waste removal. This review focuses on the various fabrication techniques (e.g., conventional and rapid prototyping methods) that have been employed to fabricate 3D scaffolds of different pore sizes and porosity. The different pore size and porosity measurement methods will also be discussed. Scaffolds with graded porosity have also been studied for their ability to better represent the actual in vivo situation where cells are exposed to layers of different tissues with varying properties. In addition, the ability of pore size and porosity of scaffolds to direct cellular responses and alter the mechanical properties of scaffolds will be reviewed, followed by a look at nature's own scaffold, the extracellular matrix. Overall, the limitations of current scaffold fabrication approaches for tissue engineering applications and some novel and promising alternatives will be highlighted.

Indexed as

AnimalsCellsHumansPorosityTissue EngineeringTissue Scaffolds

Identifiers

PMID23672709
PMCPMC3826579

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.