ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2015
In vitro comparison of three rifampicin loading methods in a reinforced porous β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of soluble lansoprazole-impregnated beta-tricalcium phosphate for bone regeneration.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Highly Porous Composite Scaffolds Endowed with Antibacterial Activity for Multifunctional Grafts in Bone Repair.Polymers · 2021Article
- [Research progress on antibacterial properties of porous medical implant materials].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- Synthesis and characterization of antibacterial drug loaded β-tricalcium phosphate powders for bone engineering applications.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2020Article
- Functional regeneration of the transected recurrent laryngeal nerve using a collagen scaffold loaded with laminin and laminin-binding BDNF and GDNF.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The antibiotic compound, rifampicin (RFP), was loaded into porous reinforced β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) scaffolds using three different solution adsorption methods. This resulted in drug delivery systems (DDS) generated by vacuum adsorption (VA), dynamic adsorption (DA), and static adsorption (SA). In vitro examination of the drug loading and release profiles of the DDS indicated that the unit mass of RFP loaded into the scaffold by the VA method (0.44 mg/g) was higher than that achieved by SA (0.42 mg/g) or DA (0.38 mg/g) (P < 0.05). The mechanical strength had no significant change after RFP-loading (P > 0.05). Moreover, there were no significant differences among the mechanical strength of three β-TCP DDS generated by loading RFP using SA, DA, and VA (P > 0.05). In vitro release testing showed an initial burst release of RFP from the three different DDS within the first 3 h and in the first 51 h, the cumulative release of RFP from VA-DDS, DA-DDS, and SA-DDS had reached 56.2, 83.6, and 88.6 %, respectively. Complete RFP release had occurred from VA-DDS, DA-DDS, and SA-DDS after 23, 17, and 15 days, respectively. As the VA-DDS method showed improved RFP loading and a more sustained drug release, this method is recommended for solution adsorption drug loading into porous β-TCP scaffolds to form a DDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25820665What 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.