ArticleBiotechnology and bioengineering2019
Osteochondral tissue coculture: An in vitro and in silico approach.
Article in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 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.
- 3D bioprinted scaffolds for osteochondral regeneration: advancements and applications.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Bioprinted High-Cell-Density Laminar Scaffolds Stimulate Extracellular Matrix Production in Osteochondral Co-Cultures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- 3D Printing for Bone-Cartilage Interface Regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- 3D Printed Multiphasic Scaffolds for Osteochondral Repair: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Osteochondral tissue coculture: An in vitro and in silico approach.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2019Article
- Utilization of Finite Element Analysis for Articular Cartilage Tissue Engineering.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Osteochondral tissue engineering aims to regenerate functional tissue-mimicking physiological properties of injured cartilage and its subchondral bone. Given the distinct structural and biochemical difference between bone and cartilage, bilayered scaffolds, and bioreactors are commonly employed. We present an osteochondral culture system which cocultured ATDC5 and MC3T3-E1 cells on an additive manufactured bilayered scaffold in a dual-chamber perfusion bioreactor. Also, finite element models (FEM) based on the microcomputed tomography image of the manufactured scaffold as well as on the computer-aided design (CAD) were constructed; the microenvironment inside the two FEM was studied and compared. In vitro results showed that the coculture system supported osteochondral tissue growth in terms of cell viability, proliferation, distribution, and attachment. In silico results showed that the CAD and the actual manufactured scaffold had significant differences in the flow velocity, differentiation media mixing in the bioreactor and fluid-induced shear stress experienced by the cells. This system was shown to have the desired microenvironment for osteochondral tissue engineering and it can potentially be used as an inexpensive tool for testing newly developed pharmaceutical products for osteochondral defects.
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.