Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27251982›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

4D printing smart biomedical scaffolds with novel soybean oil epoxidized acrylate.

Shida Miao, Wei Zhu, Nathan J Castro, Margaret Nowicki, Xuan Zhou, Haitao Cui, John P Fisher, Lijie Grace Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

57 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

8 authors.

Shida MiaoDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.
Wei ZhuDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.
Nathan J CastroDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.
Margaret NowickiDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.
Xuan ZhouDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.
Haitao CuiDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.
John P FisherFischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Lijie Grace ZhangDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA.

Funding

A Novel 3D Bioprinted Smart Vascularized Nano TissueDP2EB020549 · NIBIB · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI ZHANG, LIJIE GRACE · 2014 to 2014
$2.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS DP2 EB020549
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Photocurable, biocompatible liquid resins are highly desired for 3D stereolithography based bioprinting. Here we solidified a novel renewable soybean oil epoxidized acrylate, using a 3D laser printing technique, into smart and highly biocompatible scaffolds capable of supporting growth of multipotent human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs). Porous scaffolds were readily fabricated by simply adjusting the printer infill density; superficial structures of the polymerized soybean oil epoxidized acrylate were significantly affected by laser frequency and printing speed. Shape memory tests confirmed that the scaffold fixed a temporary shape at -18 °C and fully recovered its original shape at human body temperature (37 °C), which indicated the great potential for 4D printing applications. Cytotoxicity analysis proved that the printed scaffolds had significant higher hMSC adhesion and proliferation than traditional polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), and had no statistical difference from poly lactic acid (PLA) and polycaprolactone (PCL). This research is believed to significantly advance the development of biomedical scaffolds with renewable plant oils and advanced 3D fabrication techniques.

Indexed as

Cell AdhesionCell ProliferationCells, CulturedHumansMesenchymal Stem CellsPorosityPrinting, Three-DimensionalSoybean OilTemperatureTissue EngineeringTissue Scaffoldsepoxidized soybean oilSoybean Oil

Identifiers

PMID27251982
PMCPMC4890173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.