ArticlePolymers2019
3D Bio-Printing of CS/Gel/HA/Gr Hybrid Osteochondral Scaffolds.
Article in Polymers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D-Printed PLA/HA Composite Scaffolds: Balancing Mechanical Properties for Bone Tissue Engineering.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimized gradient of lyophilized platelet-rich plasma in biomimetic 3D-printed triphasic scaffold based on alginate and gelatin for osteochondral tissue engineering.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Biomimetic Approaches for the Design and Fabrication of Bone-to-Soft Tissue Interfaces.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Review
- Is 3D Printing Promising for Osteochondral Tissue Regeneration?ACS applied bio materials · 2023Review
- Application of 3D Bioprinting in Urology.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Articulation inspired by nature: a review of biomimetic and biologically active 3D printed scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering.Biomaterials science · 2022Review
- Advances in Use of Nanomaterials for Musculoskeletal Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- 3D Printed Multiphasic Scaffolds for Osteochondral Repair: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Clay Minerals as Bioink Ingredients for 3D Printing and 3D Bioprinting: Application in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Translational Application of 3D Bioprinting for Cartilage Tissue Engineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Tip-Viscid Electrohydrodynamic Jet 3D Printing of Composite Osteochondral Scaffold.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Osteochondral Tissue Engineering: The Potential of Electrospinning and Additive Manufacturing.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Review
- Article
- Advances in the Research of Bioinks Based on Natural Collagen, Polysaccharide and Their Derivatives for Skin 3D Bioprinting.Polymers · 2020Review
- [The application and prospects of three dimensional bioprinting in urinary system reconstruction].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cartilage is an important tissue contributing to the structure and function of support and protection in the human body. There are many challenges for tissue cartilage repair. However, 3D bio-printing of osteochondral scaffolds provides a promising solution. This study involved preparing bio-inks with different proportions of chitosan (Cs), Gelatin (Gel), and Hyaluronic acid (HA). The rheological properties of each bio-ink was used to identify the optimal bio-ink for printing. To improve the mechanical properties of the bio-scaffold, Graphene (GR) with a mass ratio of 0.024, 0.06, and 0.1% was doped in the bio-ink. Bio-scaffolds were prepared using 3D printing technology. The mechanical strength, water absorption rate, porosity, and degradation rate of the bio-scaffolds were compared to select the most suitable scaffold to support the proliferation and differentiation of cells. P3 Bone mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) were inoculated onto the bio-scaffolds to study the biocompatibility of the scaffolds. The results of SEM showed that the Cs/Gel/HA scaffolds with a GR content of 0, 0.024, 0.06, and 0.1% had a good three-dimensional porous structure and interpenetrating pores, and a porosity of more than 80%. GR was evenly distributed on the scaffold as observed by energy spectrum analyzer and polarizing microscope. With increasing GR content, the mechanical strength of the scaffold was enhanced, and pore walls became thicker and smoother. BMSCs were inoculated on the different scaffolds. The cells distributed and extended well on Cs/Gel/HA/GR scaffolds. Compared to traditional methods in tissue-engineering, this technique displays important advantages in simulating natural cartilage with the ability to finely control the mechanical and chemical properties of the scaffold to support cell distribution and proliferation for tissue repair.
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.