Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33942505›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part A2021

Physical and biological properties of electrospun poly(d,l-lactide)/nanoclay and poly(d,l-lactide)/nanosilica nanofibrous scaffold for bone tissue engineering.

Francesco Lopresti, Francesco Carfì Pavia, Manuela Ceraulo, Elisa Capuana, Valerio Brucato, Giulio Ghersi, Luigi Botta, Vincenzo La Carrubba

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francesco LoprestiDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3893-0820
Francesco Carfì PaviaDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5107-5588
Manuela CerauloDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.
Elisa CapuanaDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.
Valerio BrucatoDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.
Giulio GhersiDepartment of Biological, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technologies, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Luigi BottaDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.
Vincenzo La CarrubbaDepartment of Engineering, University of Palermo, RU INSTM, Palermo, Italy.
University of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrospun scaffolds exhibiting high physical performances with the ability to support cell attachment and proliferation are attracting more and more scientific interest for tissue engineering applications. The inclusion of inorganic nanoparticles such as nanosilica and nanoclay into electrospun biopolymeric matrices can meet these challenging requirements. The silica and clay incorporation into polymeric nanofibers has been reported to enhance and improve the mechanical properties as well as the osteogenic properties of the scaffolds. In this work, for the first time, the physical and biological properties of polylactic acid (PLA) electrospun mats filled with different concentrations of nanosilica and nanoclay were evaluated and compared. The inclusion of the particles was evaluated through morphological investigations and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. The morphology of nanofibers was differently affected by the amount and kind of fillers and it was correlated to the viscosity of the polymeric suspensions. The wettability of the scaffolds, evaluated through wet contact angle measurements, slightly increased for both the nanocomposites. The crystallinity of the systems was investigated by differential scanning calorimetry highlighting the nucleating action of both nanosilica and nanoclay on PLA. Scaffolds were mechanically characterized with tensile tests to evaluate the reinforcing action of the fillers. Finally, cell culture assays with pre-osteoblastic cells were conducted on a selected composite scaffold in order to compare the cell proliferation and morphology with that of neat PLA scaffolds. Based on the results, we can convince that nanosilica and nanoclay can be both considered great potential fillers for electrospun systems engineered for bone tissue regeneration.

Indexed as

OsteogenesisTissue EngineeringAnimalsBone and BonesCell LineMiceNanocompositesNanofibersPolyestersTissue ScaffoldsPolyesterspoly(lactide)electrospinningnanoclaynanosilicapolylactic acidpre-osteoblastic cellstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID33942505
PMCPMC8518812
OpenAlexW3158785679

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.