Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29046717›Full record

ArticleJournal of biological engineering2017

Designing of PLA scaffolds for bone tissue replacement fabricated by ordinary commercial 3D printer.

Aleš Gregor, Eva Filová, Martin Novák, Jakub Kronek, Hynek Chlup, Matěj Buzgo, Veronika Blahnová, Věra Lukášová, Martin Bartoš, Alois Nečas and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biological engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing 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

108 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Histological Processing of Scaffolds: Challenges and Solutions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Research Progress of Bone Grafting: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

48 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

11 authors.

Aleš GregorDepartment of Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 4, 166 07 Prague 6, Czechia.ORCID 0000-0002-7739-2044
Eva FilováInstitute of Experimental Medicine of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, 14220 Prague 4, Czechia.
Martin NovákDepartment of Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 4, 166 07 Prague 6, Czechia.
Jakub KronekDepartment of Mechanics, Biomechanics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 4, 166 07 Prague 6, Czechia.
Hynek ChlupDepartment of Mechanics, Biomechanics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 4, 166 07 Prague 6, Czechia.
Matěj BuzgoUniversity Centre for Energy Efficient Buildings, Třinecká 1024, 273 43 Buštěhrad, Czechia.
Veronika BlahnováInstitute of Experimental Medicine of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, 14220 Prague 4, Czechia.
Věra LukášováInstitute of Experimental Medicine of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Vídeňská 1083, 14220 Prague 4, Czechia.
Martin BartošDepartment of Stomatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 12801 Prague 2, Czechia.
Alois NečasUniversity of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciencies Brno, Palackého tř. 1946/1, 612 42 Brno, Czechia.
Jan HošekDepartment of Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 4, 166 07 Prague 6, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary objective of Tissue engineering is a regeneration or replacement of tissues or organs damaged by disease, injury, or congenital anomalies. At present, Tissue engineering repairs damaged tissues and organs with artificial supporting structures called scaffolds. These are used for attachment and subsequent growth of appropriate cells. During the cell growth gradual biodegradation of the scaffold occurs and the final product is a new tissue with the desired shape and properties. In recent years, research workplaces are focused on developing scaffold by bio-fabrication techniques to achieve fast, precise and cheap automatic manufacturing of these structures. Most promising techniques seem to be Rapid prototyping due to its high level of precision and controlling. However, this technique is still to solve various issues before it is easily used for scaffold fabrication. In this article we tested printing of clinically applicable scaffolds with use of commercially available devices and materials. Research presented in this article is in general focused on "scaffolding" on a field of bone tissue replacement.

resultsCommercially available 3D printer and Polylactic acid were used to create originally designed and possibly suitable scaffold structures for bone tissue engineering. We tested printing of scaffolds with different geometrical structures. Based on the osteosarcoma cells proliferation experiment and mechanical testing of designed scaffold samples, it will be stated that it is likely not necessary to keep the recommended porosity of the scaffold for bone tissue replacement at about 90%, and it will also be clarified why this fact eliminates mechanical properties issue. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the size of an individual pore could be double the size of the recommended range between 0.2-0.35 mm without affecting the cell proliferation.

conclusionRapid prototyping technique based on Fused deposition modelling was used for the fabrication of designed scaffold structures. All the experiments were performed in order to show how to possibly solve certain limitations and issues that are currently reported by research workplaces on the field of scaffold bio-fabrication. These results should provide new valuable knowledge for further research.

Indexed as

3D printingBio-fabricationFused deposition modellingPolylactic acidRapid prototypingRebel IIScaffoldTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID29046717
PMCPMC5641988

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.