Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32672384›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials2021

In vitro degradation profiles and in vivo biomaterial-tissue interactions of microwell array delivery devices.

Elahe Hadavi, Rick H W de Vries, Alexandra M Smink, Bart de Haan, Jeroen Leijten, Leendert W Schwab, Marcel H B J Karperien, Paul de Vos, Pieter J Dijkstra, Aart A van Apeldoorn

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. In vitro degradation profiles and in vivo biomaterial-tissue interactions of microwell array delivery devices.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Elahe HadaviDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Rick H W de VriesDepartment of Cell Biology - Inspired Tissue Engineering (cBITE), MERLN Institute for Technology Inspired Regenerative Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2801-6138
Alexandra M SminkDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, Section of Immunoendocrinology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9714-1779
Bart de HaanDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, Section of Immunoendocrinology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jeroen LeijtenDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8063-207X
Leendert W SchwabPolyganics B.V., Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marcel H B J KarperienDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0751-0604
Paul de VosDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, Section of Immunoendocrinology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9618-2408
Pieter J DijkstraDepartment of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8455-1093
Aart A van ApeldoornDepartment of Cell Biology - Inspired Tissue Engineering (cBITE), MERLN Institute for Technology Inspired Regenerative Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2940-5699
University of Twente · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLMaastricht University · NLPolyganics (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To effectively apply microwell array cell delivery devices their biodegradation rate must be tailored towards their intended use and implantation location. Two microwell array devices with distinct degradation profiles, either suitable for the fabrication of retrievable systems in the case of slow degradation, or cell delivery systems capable of extensive remodeling using a fast degrading polymer, were compared in this study. Thin films of a poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(butylene terephthalate) (PEOT-PBT) and a poly(ester urethane) were evaluated for their in vitro degradation profiles over 34 weeks incubation in PBS at different pH values. The PEOT-PBT films showed minimal in vitro degradation over time, while the poly(ester urethane) films showed extensive degradation and fragmentation over time. Subsequently, microwell array cell delivery devices were fabricated from these polymers and intraperitoneally implanted in Albino Oxford rats to study their biocompatibility over a 12-week period. The PEOT-PBT implants shown to be capable to maintain the microwell structure over time. Implants provoked a foreign body response resulting in multilayer fibrosis that integrated into the surrounding tissue. The poly(ester urethane) implants showed a loss of the microwell structures over time, as well as a fibrotic response until the onset of fragmentation, at least 4 weeks post implantation. It was concluded that the PEOT-PBT implants could be used as retrievable cell delivery devices while the poly(ester urethane) implants could be used for cell delivery devices that require remodeling within a 4-12 week period.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBiodegradation, EnvironmentalHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMechanical PhenomenaMechanical TestsModels, AnimalPolyestersPolyethylene GlycolsPolyethylene TerephthalatesPolyurethanesProstheses and ImplantsRatsRegenerationTensile StrengthBiocompatible Materialsmicrothane foamPolyestersPolyethylene Glycolspolyethylene terephthalate glycolPolyethylene TerephthalatesPolyurethanesbiodegradationcell-material interactionsforeign body reactions (response)implant designregenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID32672384
PMCPMC7754331
OpenAlexW3042791925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.