ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials2019
Cellular Response to 3-D Printed Bioactive Silicate and Borosilicate Glass Scaffolds.
Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Effect of Non-cellular Bioactive Glass-Containing Scaffolds on Osteogenesis and Angiogenesis inFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Pooled it
- Regulated contribution of local and systemic immunity to new bone regeneration by modulating B/Sr concentration of bioactive borosilicate glass.Materials today. Bio · 2023Article
- Bioprinting Technologies and Bioinks for Vascular Model Establishment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Gelatin and Bioactive Glass Composites for Tissue Engineering: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Review
- A Chemical Approach to Optimizing Bioactive Glass Dental Composites.Journal of dental research · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The repair and regeneration of loaded segmental bone defects is a challenge for both materials and biomedical science communities. Our recent work demonstrated the capability of bioactive glass in supporting bone healing and defect bridging using a rabbit femur segmental defect model without growth factors or bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs). Here in the current work, a comprehensive in vitro evaluation of bioactive silicate (13-93) and borosilicate (2B6Sr) glass scaffolds was conducted to provide further understanding of their biological performances and to establish a correlation between in vitro and in vivo behaviors. Our in vitro evaluation using a murine MC3T3-E1 cell line confirmed the capability of both scaffolds to support cell attachment, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) formation, and to stimulate mineral deposition and osteoblast marker gene expression. In particular, borosilicate (2B6Sr) glass showed a better capability in supporting the mineralization and gene expression than silicate (13-93) glass, consistent with a faster bone healing ability in vivo. The current in vitro results, combined with our previous in vivo findings, provide a strong basis for the further translational evaluation of bioactive glass scaffolds and for potential preclinical practice. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 818-824, 2019.
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.