ArticleScientific reports2020
Heat treatment dependent cytotoxicity of silicalite-1 films deposited on Ti-6Al-4V alloy evaluated by bone-derived cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological Response of Osteoblasts to Zirconia Manufactured via FFF, DLP, and Milling.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Coating Ti6Al4V implants with nanocrystalline diamond functionalized with BMP-7 promotes extracellular matrix mineralization in vitro and faster osseointegration in vivo.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Design, Synthesis, and Preliminary Evaluation for Ti-Mo-Zr-Ta-Si Alloys for Potential Implant Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A silicalite-1 film (SF) deposited on Ti-6Al-4V alloy was investigated in this study as a promising coating for metallic implants. Two forms of SFs were prepared: as-synthesized SFs (SF-RT), and SFs heated up to 500 °C (SF-500) to remove the excess of template species from the SF surface. The SFs were characterized in detail by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and water contact angle measurements (WCA). Two types of bone-derived cells (hFOB 1.19 non-tumor fetal osteoblast cell line and U-2 OS osteosarcoma cell line) were used for a biocompatibility assessment. The initial adhesion of hFOB 1.19 cells, evaluated by cell numbers and cell spreading area, was better supported by SF-500 than by SF-RT. While no increase in cell membrane damage, in ROS generation and in TNF-alpha secretion of bone-derived cells grown on both SFs was found, gamma H2AX staining revealed an elevated DNA damage response of U-2 OS cells grown on heat-treated samples (SF-500). This study also discusses differences between osteosarcoma cell lines and non-tumor osteoblastic cells, stressing the importance of choosing the right cell type model.
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.