ArticleBiomedical materials (Bristol, England)2021
Polymer-coated microparticle scaffolds engineered for potential use in musculoskeletal tissue regeneration.
Article in Biomedical materials (Bristol, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Biomaterials constructed exclusively of sintered microspheres have great potential in tissue engineering scaffold applications, offering the ability to create shape-specific scaffolds with precise controlled release yet to be matched by traditional additive manufacturing methods. The problem is that these microsphere-based scaffolds are limited in their stiffness for applications such as bone regeneration. Our vision to solve this problem was borne from a hierarchical structure perspective, focusing on the individual unit of the structure: the microsphere itself. In a core-shell approach, we envisioned a stiff core to create a stiff microsphere unit, with a polymeric shell that would enable sintering to the other microsphere units. Therefore, the current study provided a comparison of macroscopic biomaterials built on either polymer microspheres or polymer-coated hard glass microspheres. Identical polycaprolactone (PCL) polymer solutions were used to fabricate microspheres and as a thin coating on soda lime glass microspheres (hard phase). The materials were characterized as loose particles and as scaffolds via scanning electron microscopy, thermogravimetry, differential scanning calorimetry, Raman spectroscopy, mechanical testing, and a live/dead analysis with human umbilical cord-derived Wharton's jelly cells. The elastic modulus of the scaffolds with the thinly coated hard phase was about five times higher with glass microspheres (up to about 25 MPa) than pure polymer microspheres, while retaining the structure, cell adhesion, and chemical properties of the PCL polymer. This proof-of-concept study demonstrated the ability to achieve at least a five-fold increase in macroscopic stiffness via altering the core microsphere units with a core-shell approach.
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.