ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2015
Effect of Ceramic Scaffold Architectural Parameters on Biological Response.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protein adsorption at material interface: mechanistic design framework for engineering ceramic scaffolds for bone repair applications.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Review
- Design of 3D Additive Manufactured Hybrid Scaffolds for Periodontal Repair Strategies.ACS applied bio materials · 2025Article
- Photocrosslinkable Biomaterials for 3D Bioprinting: Mechanisms, Recent Advances, and Future Prospects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Biological Performance of Duplex PEO + CNT/PCL Coating on AZ31B Mg Alloy for Orthopedic and Dental Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Microporous Hydroxyapatite-Based Ceramics Alter the Physiology of Endothelial Cells through Physical and Chemical Cues.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Microporous/Macroporous Polycaprolactone Scaffolds for Dental Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Adjusting the physico-chemical properties of collagen scaffolds to accommodate primary osteoblasts and endothelial cells.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Article
- Functional engineering strategies of 3D printed implants for hard tissue replacement.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Review
- A Review on the Role of Wollastonite Biomaterial in Bone Tissue Engineering.BioMed research international · 2022Review
- Three-dimensional bioprinting sodium alginate/gelatin scaffold combined with neural stem cells and oligodendrocytes markedly promoting nerve regeneration after spinal cord injury.Regenerative biomaterials · 2022Article
- Bioactive Ceramic Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering by Powder Bed Selective Laser Processing: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Polymer-Derived BiosilicateMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Development Tendency of 3D-Printed Bioceramic Scaffolds for Applications Ranging From Bone Tissue Regeneration to Bone Tumor Therapy.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- 3D-printed Biomimetic Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration in Rat Calvarial Defects.International journal of bioprinting · 2020Article
- Article
- Strategy for achieving standardized bone models.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2020Review
- Preheating of Gelatin Improves its Printability with Transglutaminase in Direct Ink Writing 3D Printing.International journal of bioprinting · 2020Article
- Current progress in hepatic tissue regeneration by tissue engineering.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Porous Calcium Phosphate Ceramic Scaffolds with Tailored Pore Orientations and Mechanical Properties Using Lithography-Based Ceramic 3D Printing Technique.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- 3D-printed gelatin scaffolds of differing pore geometry modulate hepatocyte function and gene expression.Acta biomaterialia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous studies have focused on the optimization of ceramic architectures to fulfill a variety of scaffold functional requirements and improve biological response. Conventional fabrication techniques, however, do not allow for the production of geometrically controlled, reproducible structures and often fail to allow the independent variation of individual geometric parameters. Current developments in additive manufacturing technologies suggest that 3D printing will allow a more controlled and systematic exploration of scaffold architectures. This more direct translation of design into structure requires a pipeline for design-driven optimization. A theoretical framework for systematic design and evaluation of architectural parameters on biological response is presented. Four levels of architecture are considered, namely (1) surface topography, (2) pore size and geometry, (3) porous networks, and (4) macroscopic pore arrangement, including the potential for spatially varied architectures. Studies exploring the effect of various parameters within these levels are reviewed. This framework will hopefully allow uncovering of new relationships between architecture and biological response in a more systematic way as well as inform future refinement of fabrication techniques to fulfill architectural necessities with a consideration of biological implications.
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.