ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2021
Tuning filament composition and microstructure of 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds facilitate bone defect regeneration and repair.
Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current state of bioceramic bone repair materials in immune regulation: a review.Frontiers of medicine · 2025Review
- Research Progress and Challenges in 3D Printing of Bioceramics and Bioceramic Matrix Composites.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advancements in nanohydroxyapatite: synthesis, biomedical applications and composite developments.Regenerative biomaterials · 2025Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing Methods for Bioceramic-Based Scaffold Fabrication for Craniomaxillofacial Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Polyetheretherketone implants with hierarchical porous structure for boosted osseointegration.Biomaterials research · 2023Article
- Modularized bioceramic scaffold/hydrogel membrane hierarchical architecture beneficial for periodontal tissue regeneration in dogs.Biomaterials research · 2022Article
- In Vivo Application of Silica-Derived Inks for Bone Tissue Engineering: A 10-Year Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Fabrication and biological evaluation of 3D-printed calcium phosphate ceramic scaffolds with distinct macroporous geometries through digital light processing technology.Regenerative biomaterials · 2022Article
- BMSCs and Osteoblast-Engineered ECM Synergetically Promotes Osteogenesis and Angiogenesis in an Ectopic Bone Formation Model.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Article
- Repair calvarial defect of osteoporotic rats by berberine functionalized porous calcium phosphate scaffold.Regenerative biomaterials · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is still a challenge to optimize the component distribution and microporous structures in scaffolds for tailoring biodegradation (ion releasing) and enhancing bone defect repair within an expected time stage. Herein, the core-shell-typed nonstoichiometric wollastonite (4% and 10% Mg-doping calcium silicate; CSiMg4, CSiMg10) macroporous scaffolds with microporous shells (adding ∼10 μm PS microspheres into shell-layer slurry) were fabricated via 3D printing. The initial mechanical properties and bio-dissolution (ion releasing)
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.