ArticlePolymers2020
Development of 3D Bioactive Scaffolds through 3D Printing Using Wollastonite-Gelatin Inks.
Article in Polymers, 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D bioprinting technology to construct bone reconstruction research model and its feasibility evaluation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Development of Biocomposite Alginate-Cuttlebone-Gelatin 3D Printing Inks Designed for Scaffolds with Bone Regeneration Potential.Marine drugs · 2022Article
- A Review on the Role of Wollastonite Biomaterial in Bone Tissue Engineering.BioMed research international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The bioactivity of scaffolds represents a key property to facilitate the bone repair after orthopedic trauma. This study reports the development of biomimetic paste-type inks based on wollastonite (CS) and fish gelatin (FG) in a mass ratio similar to natural bone, as an appealing strategy to promote the mineralization during scaffold incubation in simulated body fluid (SBF). High-resolution 3D scaffolds were fabricated through 3D printing, and the homogeneous distribution of CS in the protein matrix was revealed by scanning electron microscopy/energy-dispersive X-ray diffraction analysis (SEM/EDX) micrographs. The bioactivity of the scaffold was suggested by an outstanding mineralization capacity revealed by the apatite layers deposited on the scaffold surface after immersion in SBF. The biocompatibility was demonstrated by cell proliferation established by MTT assay and fluorescence microscopy images and confirmed by SEM micrographs illustrating cell spreading. This work highlights the potential of the bicomponent inks to fabricate 3D bioactive scaffolds and predicts the osteogenic properties for bone regeneration applications.
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.