ArticleJournal of tissue engineering
Differential chondro- and osteo-stimulation in three-dimensional porous scaffolds with different topological surfaces provides a design strategy for biphasic osteochondral engineering.
Article in Journal of tissue engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D printing combined with thermally induced phase separation for engineering hierarchical osteogenic PLA scaffolds.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Nanohydroxyapatite and Bioactive Glass Composites in Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Nanofibrous scaffolds for bone and cartilage regeneration.Applied physics reviews · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Printed Cell-Adaptable Nanocolloidal Hydrogel Induces Endogenous Osteogenesis for Bone Repair.Biomaterials research · 2025Article
- Exploring the frontiers: The potential and challenges of bioactive scaffolds in osteosarcoma treatment and bone regeneration.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Application of kartogenin for the treatment of cartilage defects: current practice and future directions.RSC advances · 2024Review
- Autophagy-modulating biomaterials: multifunctional weapons to promote tissue regeneration.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2024Review
- Kartogenin delivery systems for biomedical therapeutics and regenerative medicine.Drug delivery · 2023Review
- Bioinspired gradient scaffolds for osteochondral tissue engineering.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2023Review
- Recent development in multizonal scaffolds for osteochondral regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2023Review
- Fabrication ofACS applied bio materials · 2023Article
- Polyurethane/Liquid Crystal Microfibers with pDNA Polyplex Loadings for the Optimal Release and Promotion of HUVEC Proliferation.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Progress in Osteochondral Regeneration with Engineering Strategies.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Review
- Preparation and characterization of a novel drug-loaded Bi-layer scaffold for cartilage regeneration.RSC advances · 2022Article
- On the road to smart biomaterials for bone research: definitions, concepts, advances, and outlook.Bone research · 2021Review
- Recombinant laminin α5 LG1-3 domains support the stemness of human mesenchymal stem cells.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Nanofibrous spongy microspheres to deliver rabbit mesenchymal stem cells and anti-miR-199a to regenerate nucleus pulposus and prevent calcification.Biomaterials · 2020Article
- Biological Effects of Tricalcium Silicate Nanoparticle-Containing Cement on Stem Cells from Human Exfoliated Deciduous Teeth.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone/cartilage interfacial tissue engineering needs to satisfy the differential properties and architectures of the osteochondral region. Therefore, biphasic or multiphasic scaffolds that aim to mimic the gradient hierarchy are widely used. Here, we find that two differently structured (topographically) three-dimensional scaffolds, namely, "dense" and "nanofibrous" surfaces, show differential stimulation in osteo- and chondro-responses of cells. While the nanofibrous scaffolds accelerate the osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells, the dense scaffolds are better in preserving the phenotypes of chondrocytes. Two types of porous scaffolds, generated by a salt-leaching method combined with a phase-separation process using the poly(lactic acid) composition, had a similar level of porosity (~90%) and pore size (~150 μm). The major difference in the surface nanostructure led to substantial changes in the surface area and water hydrophilicity (nanofibrous ≫ dense); as a result, the nanofibrous scaffolds increased the cell-to-matrix adhesion of mesenchymal stem cells significantly while decreasing the cell-to-cell contracts. Importantly, the chondrocytes, when cultured on nanofibrous scaffolds, were prone to lose their phenotype, including reduced chondrogenic expressions (SOX-9, collagen type II, and Aggrecan) and glycosaminoglycan content, which was ascribed to the enhanced cell-matrix adhesion with reduced cell-cell contacts. On the contrary, the osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells was significantly accelerated by the improved cell-to-matrix adhesion, as evidenced in the enhanced osteogenic expressions (RUNX2, bone sialoprotein, and osteopontin) and cellular mineralization. Based on these findings, we consider that the dense scaffold is preferentially used for the chondral-part, whereas the nanofibrous structure is suitable for osteo-part, to provide an optimal biphasic matrix environment for osteochondral tissue engineering.
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.