Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33923079›Full record

ArticlePolymers2021

Fabrication of Polycaprolactone/Nano Hydroxyapatite (PCL/nHA) 3D Scaffold with Enhanced In Vitro Cell Response via Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM).

Yong Sang Cho, So-Jung Gwak, Young-Sam Cho

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

3 authors.

Yong Sang ChoMedical IT Convergence Research Section, Daegu-Gyeongbuk Research Center, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Techno Sunhwan-ro 10-gil, Dalseong-gun, Daegu 42994, Korea.
So-Jung GwakDepartment of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Wonkwang University, 460 Iksandae-ro, Iksan, Jeonbuk 54538, Korea.
Young-Sam ChoDepartment of Mechanical Design Engineering, College of Engineering, Wonkwang University, 460 Iksandae-ro, Iksan, Jeonbuk 54538, Korea.

Funding

Wonkwang University Wonkwang University in 2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the dual-pore kagome-structure design of a 3D-printed scaffold with enhanced in vitro cell response and compared the mechanical properties with 3D-printed scaffolds with conventional or offset patterns. The compressive modulus of the 3D-printed scaffold with the proposed design was found to resemble that of the 3D-printed scaffold with a conventional pattern at similar pore sizes despite higher porosity. Furthermore, the compressive modulus of the proposed scaffold surpassed that of the 3D-printed scaffold with conventional and offset patterns at similar porosities owing to the structural characteristics of the kagome structure. Regarding the in vitro cell response, cell adhesion, cell growth, and ALP concentration of the proposed scaffold for 14 days was superior to those of the control group scaffolds. Consequently, we found that the mechanical properties and in vitro cell response of the 3D-printed scaffold could be improved by kagome and dual-pore structures through DfAM. Moreover, we revealed that the dual-pore structure is effective for the in vitro cell response compared to the structures possessing conventional and offset patterns.

Indexed as

bone tissue engineeringdesign for additive manufacturingkagome structurescaffold

Identifiers

PMID33923079
PMCPMC8123325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.