ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021
Composite Bioinks With Mesoporous Bioactive Glasses-A Critical Evaluation of Results Obtained by
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mesoporous Bioactive Glasses: A Powerful Tool in Tissue Engineering and Drug Delivery.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Nanomaterial-mediated antibiotic delivery: a novel strategy for osteomyelitis therapy.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Nanocomposite Bioprinting for Tissue Engineering Applications.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Besides osteoconductivity and a high degradation rate, mesoporous bioactive glasses (MBGs) are specific for their highly ordered channel structure and high specific surface area, making them suitable as drug and/or growth factor delivery systems. On the other hand, the mesoporous channel structure and MBG composition can have an effect on common cell evaluation assays, leading to inconclusive results. This effect is especially important when MBG is mixed in composite bioinks, together with cells. Additionally, the hydrogel component of the ink can influence the degradation of MBG, leading to different ion releases, which can additionally affect the analyses. Hence, our aim here was to show how the MBG structure and composition influence common cell viability and differentiation assays when calcium (Ca)- or magnesium (Mg)-containing glass is part of an alginate-based composite bioink. We suggested pre-labeling of cells with DiI prior to bioprinting and staining with calcein-AM to allow identification of metabolically active cells expressing signals in both green and red channels, allowing the use of fluorescence imaging for cell viability evaluations in the presence of high amounts (7 wt %) of MBGs. The release and uptake of ions during degradation of CaMBG and MgMBG were significantly changed by alginate in the composite bioinks, as confirmed by higher release and uptake from bulk glasses. Additionally, we detected a burst release of Mg
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.