ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2018
Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Fabricated in Dissolvable 3D-Printed Molds for Patient-Specific Craniofacial Bone Regeneration.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Additive Manufacturing Techniques in the Development of Polymeric Molds: A Review.Polymers · 2024Review
- Embedded 3D Printing of Cryogel-Based Scaffolds.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Article
- Polymeric Nanocomposite Hydrogel Scaffolds in Craniofacial Bone Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- 3D bioprinting optimization of human mesenchymal stromal cell laden gelatin-alginate-collagen bioink.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- Composites Composed of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Polymers, and Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, and Study of Their Biocompatible Properties.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Article
- From injectable to 3D printed hydrogels in maxillofacial tissue engineering: A review.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current gold standard treatment for oral clefts is autologous bone grafting. This treatment, however, presents another wound site for the patient, greater discomfort, and pediatric patients have less bone mass for bone grafting. A potential alternative treatment is the use of tissue engineered scaffolds. Hydrogels are well characterized nanoporous scaffolds and cryogels are mechanically durable, macroporous, sponge-like scaffolds. However, there has been limited research on these scaffolds for cleft craniofacial defects. 3D-printed molds can be combined with cryogel/hydrogel fabrication to create patient-specific tissue engineered scaffolds. By combining 3D-printing technology and scaffold fabrication, we were able to create scaffolds with the geometry of three cleft craniofacial defects. The scaffolds were then characterized to assess the effect of the mold on their physical properties. While the scaffolds were able to completely fill the mold, creating the desired geometry, the overall volumes were smaller than expected. The cryogels possessed porosities ranging from 79.7% to 87.2% and high interconnectivity. Additionally, the cryogels swelled from 400% to almost 1500% of their original dry weight while the hydrogel swelling did not reach 500%, demonstrating the ability to fill a defect site. Overall, despite the complex geometry, the cryogel scaffolds displayed ideal properties for bone reconstruction.
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.