ArticleMolecular medicine reports2019
Characterization of different biodegradable scaffolds in tissue engineering.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a novel small diameter vascular graft based on an electrospun blend PET/PU scaffold: from fabrication to structural, mechanical, and in vitro evaluation.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025Article
- Mineral trioxide aggregate in membrane form as a barrier membrane in guided bone regeneration.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- The application of small intestinal submucosa in tissue regeneration.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Article
- Osteogenic Potential of Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (hDPSCs) Growing on Poly L-Lactide-Co-Caprolactone and Hyaluronic Acid (HYAFF-11International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Recent Methods for Modifying Mechanical Properties of Tissue-Engineered Scaffolds for Clinical Applications.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Current Strategies for Engineered Vascular Grafts and Vascularized Tissue Engineering.Polymers · 2023Review
- An Effective Method for Decellularization of Human Foreskin: Implications for Skin Regeneration in Small Wounds.Cell journal · 2022Article
- The Significance of Biomechanics and Scaffold Structure for Bladder Tissue Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Article
- Urethral Tissue Reconstruction Using the Acellular Dermal Matrix Patch Modified with Collagen-Binding VEGF in Beagle Urethral Injury Models.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- The Use of Tissue Engineering to Fabricate Perfusable 3D Brain MicrovesselsFrontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of 1-Ethyl-3-(3-Dimethylaminopropyl) Carbodiimide Cross-Linked Collagen Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration in Beagle Dogs.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Engineering clinically-relevant human fibroblastic cell-derived extracellular matrices.Methods in cell biology · 2020Article
- Vascular Tissue Engineering: Polymers and Methodologies for Small Caliber Vascular Grafts.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Review
- Vascularized characteristics and functional regeneration of three-dimensional cell reconstruction of oral mucosa equivalents based on vascular homeostasis phenotypic modification.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the characteristics of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), small intestinal submucosa (SIS) and Bio‑Gide scaffolds with acellular vascular matrix (ACVM)‑0.25% human‑like collagen I (HLC‑I) scaffold in tissue engineering blood vessels. The ACVM‑0.25% HLC‑I scaffold was prepared and compared with ADM, SIS and Bio‑Gide scaffolds via hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, Masson staining and scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations. Primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were cultured and identified. Then, the experiment was established via the seeding of HGFs on different scaffolds for 1, 4 and 7 days. The compatibility of four different scaffolds with HGFs was evaluated by H&E staining, SEM observation and Cell Counting Kit‑8 assay. Then, a series of experiments were conducted to evaluate water absorption capacities, mechanical abilities, the ultra‑microstructure and the cytotoxicity of the four scaffolds. The ACVM‑0.25% HLC‑I scaffold was revealed to exhibit the best cell proliferation and good cell architecture. ADM and Bio‑Gide scaffolds exhibited good mechanical stability but cell proliferation was reduced when compared with the ACVM‑0.25% HLC‑I scaffold. In addition, SIS scaffolds exhibited the worst cell proliferation. The ACVM‑0.25% HLC‑I scaffold exhibited the best water absorption, followed by the SIS and Bio‑Gide scaffolds, and then the ADM scaffold. In conclusion, the ACVM‑0.25% HLC‑I scaffold has good mechanical properties as a tissue engineering scaffold and the present results suggest that it has better biological characterization when compared with other scaffold types.
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.