ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Sub-Micropillar Spacing Modulates the Spatial Arrangement of Mouse MC3T3-E1 Osteoblastic Cells.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cryogenic Foaming of Silk Fibroin Composite for Scaffolds in Bone and Periodontal Regeneration.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Micropillars in Cell Mechanobiology: Design, Fabrication, Characterization, and Biosensing Applications.Small science · 2025Review
- Lateral Spacing of TiOBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Composite PCL Scaffold With 70% β-TCP as Suitable Structure for Bone Replacement.International dental journal · 2024Article
- Polishing methods for composites restoration: the influence on human gingival fibroblasts behaviour.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The cytological and electrophysiological effects of silver nanoparticles on neuron-like PC12 cells.PloS one · 2022Article
- 3D-Printed Submicron Patterns Reveal the Interrelation between Cell Adhesion, Cell Mechanics, and Osteogenesis.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2021Article
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
Surface topography is one of the main factors controlling cell responses on implanted devices and a proper definition of the characteristics that optimize cell behavior may be crucial to improve the clinical performances of these implants. Substrate geometry is known to affect cell shape, as cells try to optimize their adhesion by adapting to the irregularities beneath, and this in turn profoundly affects their activity. In the present study, we cultured murine calvaria MC3T3-E1 cells on surfaces with pillars arranged as hexagons with two different spacings and observed their morphology during adhesion and growth. Cells on these highly ordered substrates attached and proliferated effectively, showing a marked preference for minimizing the inter-pillar distance, by following specific pathways across adjacent pillars and displaying consistent morphological modules. Moreover, cell behavior appeared to follow tightly controlled patterns of extracellular protein secretion, which preceded and matched cells and, on a sub-cellular level, cytoplasmic orientation. Taken together, these results outline the close integration of surface features, extracellular proteins alignment and cell arrangement, and provide clues on how to control and direct cell spatial order and cell morphology by simply acting on inter-pillar spacing.
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.