ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials2021
In vitro degradation profiles and in vivo biomaterial-tissue interactions of microwell array delivery devices.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical and Biological Properties of Nondecellularized Human Wharton's Jelly Matrix for Soft Tissue Graft Material: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Synthetic Hydrogels Incorporating Hydrolytic/Nonhydrolytic Macromer Ratios Exhibit Improved Tunability of In Vivo Degradation and Immune Responses.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Designing Multifunctional Microneedles in Biomedical Engineering: Materials, Methods, and Applications.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- A Rapid Screening Platform for Simultaneous Evaluation of Biodegradation and Therapeutic Release of an Ocular Hydrogel.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Effect of the Advanced Cranial and Craniofacial Implant Fabrication on Their Degradation Affinity.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Moxifloxacin HCl-Incorporated Aqueous-Induced Nitrocellulose-Based In Situ Gel for Periodontal Pocket Delivery.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Response patterns in adventitial layer of Echinococcus granulosus sensu stricto cysts from naturally infected cattle and sheep.Veterinary research · 2021Article
- In vitro degradation profiles and in vivo biomaterial-tissue interactions of microwell array delivery devices.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.