Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34995904›Full record

ArticleBiomaterials2022

Controlled Co-delivery of pPDGF-B and pBMP-2 from intraoperatively bioprinted bone constructs improves the repair of calvarial defects in rats.

Kazim K Moncal, R Seda Tigli Aydın, Kevin P Godzik, Timothy M Acri, Dong N Heo, Elias Rizk, Hwabok Wee, Gregory S Lewis, Aliasger K Salem, Ibrahim T Ozbolat

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biomaterials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Fundamental research · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Engineering Stimuli-Responsive Materials for Precision Medicine.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Bioactive materials · 2023
    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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Kazim K MoncalEngineering Science and Mechanics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; Huck Institute of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
R Seda Tigli AydınDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University, Incivez, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Kevin P GodzikBiomedical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Timothy M AcriDivision of Pharmaceutics and Translational Therapeutics, Collage of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, IA, USA.
Dong N HeoDepartment of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Elias RizkDepartment of Neurosurgery, Penn State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Hwabok WeeDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Penn State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Gregory S LewisEngineering Science and Mechanics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Penn State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Aliasger K SalemDivision of Pharmaceutics and Translational Therapeutics, Collage of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, IA, USA; Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa, IA, USA.
Ibrahim T OzbolatEngineering Science and Mechanics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; Huck Institute of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; Biomedical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Penn State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; Materials Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Electronic address: ito1@psu.edu.
Pennsylvania State University · USPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USUniversity of Iowa · USBülent Ecevit University · TRKyung Hee University Dental Hospital · KR

Funding

Pulmonary Toxicology Facility CoreP30ES005605 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Brandi Janssen · 1990 to 2026
$40.5M
Intraoperative bioprinting of composite tissues with zonal stratification for craniomaxillofacial reconstructionR01DE028614 · NIDCR · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI OZBOLAT, IBRAHIM · 2020 to 2024
$2.8M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE028614NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES005605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intraoperative bioprinting (IOB), which refers to the bioprinting process performed on a live subject in a surgical setting, has made it feasible to directly deliver gene-activated matrices into craniomaxillofacial (CMF) defect sites. In this study, we demonstrated a novel approach to overcome the current limitations of traditionally fabricated non-viral gene delivery systems through direct IOB of bone constructs into defect sites. We used a controlled co-delivery release of growth factors from a gene-activated matrix (an osteogenic bioink loaded with plasmid-DNAs (pDNA)) to promote bone repair. The controlled co-delivery approach was achieved from the combination of platelet-derived growth factor-B encoded plasmid-DNA (pPDGF-B) and chitosan-nanoparticle encapsulating pDNA encoded with bone morphogenetic protein-2 (CS-NPs(pBMP2)), which facilitated a burst release of pPDGF-B in 10 days, and a sustained release of pBMP-2 for 5 weeks in vitro. The controlled co-delivery approach was tested for its potential to repair critical-sized rat calvarial defects. The controlled-released pDNAs from the intraoperatively bioprinted bone constructs resulted in ∼40% bone tissue formation and ∼90% bone coverage area at 6 weeks compared to ∼10% new bone tissue and ∼25% total bone coverage area in empty defects. The delivery of growth factors incorporated within the intraoperatively bioprinted constructs could pose as an effective way to enhance bone regeneration in patients with cranial injuries in the future.

Indexed as

BioprintingBone Morphogenetic Protein 2AnimalsBone and BonesBone RegenerationGene Transfer TechniquesHumansOsteogenesisRatsBone Morphogenetic Protein 2Controlled co-deliveryIn-situ deliveryIntraoperative bioprintingPlasmid-DNAs

Identifiers

PMID34995904
PMCPMC8810707
OpenAlexW4200110956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.