ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Physical Properties and In Vitro Biocompatible Evaluation of Silicone-Modified Polyurethane Nanofibers and Films.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. 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.
- Fabrication of Waterborne Silicone-Modified Polyurethane Nanofibers for Nonfluorine Elastic Waterproof and Breathable Membranes.Polymers · 2024Article
- Preparation of Waterborne Silicone-Modified Polyurethane Nanofibers and the Effect of Crosslinking Agents on Physical Properties.Polymers · 2024Article
- Biological Effects, Applications and Design Strategies of Medical Polyurethanes Modified by Nanomaterials.International journal of nanomedicine · 2022Review
- Preparation and Evaluation of Nanofibrous Hydroxypropyl Cellulose and β-Cyclodextrin Polyurethane Composite Mats.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Size matters-in vitro behaviour of human fibroblasts on textured silicone surfaces with different pore sizes.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2020Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, the physical properties and the biocompatibility of electrospun silicone-modified polyurethane (PUSX) nanofibers were discussed and compared with PUSX films. To investigate the effects of different structures on the physical properties, tensile strength, elongation at break, Young's modulus, water retention, water contact angle (WCA) and thermal conductivity measurements were performed. To prove the in vitro biocompatibility of the materials, cell adhesion, cell proliferation, and cytotoxicity were studied by NIH3T3 mouse embryonic fibroblasts cells following by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) analysis. As a conclusion, the mechanical properties, water retention, and WCA were proven to be able to be controlled and improved by adjusting the structure of PUSX. A higher hydrophobicity and lower thermal conductivity were found in PUSX nanofibers compared with polyurethane (PU) nanofibers and films. An in vitro biocompatibility evaluation shows that the cell proliferation can be performed on both PUSX nanofibers and films. However, within a short period, cells prefer to attach and entangle on PUSX nanofibers rather than PUSX films. PUSX nanofibers were proven to be a nontoxic alternative for PU nano-membranes or films in the biomedical field, because of the controllable physical properties and the biocompatibility.
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.