ArticleACS omega2018
Chemically Treated 3D Printed Polymer Scaffolds for Biomineral Formation.
Article in ACS omega, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-dimensional nanomaterials-added dynamism in 3D printing and bioprinting of biomedical platforms: Unique opportunities and challenges.Biomaterials · 2022Review
- Mineralizing Coating on 3D Printed Scaffolds for the Promotion of Osseointegration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Advances in Use of Nanomaterials for Musculoskeletal Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Heat Sterilization Effects on Polymeric, FDM-Optimized Orthopedic Cutting Guide for Surgical Procedures.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Article
- Fabrication of polylactic acid (PLA)-based porous scaffold through the combination of traditional bio-fabrication and 3D printing technology for bone regeneration.Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces · 2021Article
- 3D Printing for Hip Implant Applications: A Review.Polymers · 2020Review
- Bioprinting: From Tissue and Organ Development toChemical reviews · 2020Review
- Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing: Test Platforms for Evaluating Post-Fabrication Chemical Modifications and In-Vitro Biological Properties.Pharmaceutics · 2019Article
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
Abstract
We present the synthesis of nylon-12 scaffolds by 3D printing and demonstrate their versatility as matrices for cell growth, differentiation, and biomineral formation. We demonstrate that the porous nature of the printed parts makes them ideal for the direct incorporation of preformed nanomaterials or material precursors, leading to nanocomposites with very different properties and environments for cell growth. Additives such as those derived from sources such as tetraethyl orthosilicate applied at a low temperature promote successful cell growth, due partly to the high surface area of the porous matrix. The incorporation of presynthesized iron oxide nanoparticles led to a material that showed rapid heating in response to an applied ac magnetic field, an excellent property for use in gene expression and, with further improvement, chemical-free sterilization. These methods also avoid changing polymer feedstocks and contaminating or even damaging commonly used selective laser sintering printers. The chemically treated 3D printed matrices presented herein have great potential for use in addressing current issues surrounding bone grafting, implants, and skeletal repair, and a wide variety of possible incorporated material combinations could impact many other areas.
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.