ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Adapting the Pore Size of Individual, 3D-Printed CPC Scaffolds in Maxillofacial Surgery.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- A Systematic Review on the Generation of Organic Structures through Additive Manufacturing Techniques.Polymers · 2024Review
- Biomaterial scaffolds in maxillofacial bone tissue engineering: A review of recent advances.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- Article
- Three-Dimensional Plotted Calcium Phosphate Scaffolds for Bone Defect Augmentation-A New Method for Regeneration.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Alternative Geometries for 3D Bioprinting of Calcium Phosphate Cement as Bone Substitute.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Physicochemical properties of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells encapsulated in microcapsules combined with calcium phosphate cement and their ectopic bone formation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Investigation of Patient-Specific Maxillofacial Implant Prototype Development by Metal Fused Filament Fabrication (MFDentistry journal · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three dimensional (3D) printing allows additive manufacturing of patient specific scaffolds with varying pore size and geometry. Such porous scaffolds, made of 3D-printable bone-like calcium phosphate cement (CPC), are suitable for bone augmentation due to their benefit for osteogenesis. Their pores allow blood-, bone- and stem cells to migrate, colonize and finally integrate into the adjacent tissue. Furthermore, the pore size affects the scaffold's stability. Since scaffolds in maxillofacial surgery have to withstand high forces within the jaw, adequate mechanical properties are of high clinical importance. Although many studies have investigated CPC for bone augmentation, the ideal porosity for specific indications has not been defined yet. We investigated 3D printed CPC cubes with increasing pore sizes and different printing orientations regarding cell migration and mechanical properties in comparison to commercially available bone substitutes. Furthermore, by investigating clinical cases, the scaffolds' designs were adapted to resemble the in vivo conditions as accurately as possible. Our findings suggest that the pore size of CPC scaffolds for bone augmentation in maxillofacial surgery necessarily needs to be adapted to the surgical site. Scaffolds for sites that are not exposed to high forces, such as the sinus floor, should be printed with a pore size of 750 µm to benefit from enhanced cell infiltration. In contrast, for areas exposed to high pressures, such as the lateral mandible, scaffolds should be manufactured with a pore size of 490 µm to guarantee adequate cell migration and in order to withstand the high forces during the chewing process.
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.