ArticleCell journal2022
Fabrication and
Article in Cell journal, 2022. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePoly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) has considerable mechanical and biological properties that make it a good candidate for tissue engineering applications. PCL alongside proteins and polysaccharides, like gelatin (GEL) and chondroitin sulphate (CS), can be used to fabricate composite scaffolds that provide mechanical and biological requirements for skin tissue engineering scaffolds. The aim of this study was fabricating novel composite nanofibrous scaffold containing various ratios of GEL/CS and PCL using co-electrospinning process. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this experimental study, PCL mixed with a GEL/CS blend has limitations in miscibility and the lack of a common solvent. Here, we electrospun PCL and GEL/CS coincide separately on the same drum by using different nozzles to create composite nanofibrous scaffolds with different ratios (2:1, 1:1 and 1:2) of GEL to CSPCL, and we mixed them at the micro/nanoscale. Morphology, porosity, phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) absorption, chemical structure, mechanical property and
resultsScanning electron microscopy (SEM) images showed beadless nanofibres at all ratios of GEL to CS-PCL. The composite scaffolds (2:1, 1:1 and 1:2) had increased porosity compared to the PCL nanofibrous scaffolds, in addition to a significant increase in PBS absorption. The mechanical properties of the composite scaffolds were investigated under different conditions. The results demonstrated that all of the composite specimens had better strength when compared with the GEL/CS nanofibres. The increase in PCL ratio led to an increase in tensile strength of the nanofibres. Human dermal fibroblasts (HDF) were cultured on the fabricated composite scaffolds and evaluated by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol- 2-yl)-5-(3 carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS) analysis and SEM. The results showed the bioactivity of these nanofibres and the potential for these scaffolds to be used for skin tissue engineering applications.
conclusionThe fabricated co-electrospun composite scaffolds had higher porosity and PBS absorption in comparison with the PCL nanofibrous scaffolds, in addition to significant improvements in mechanical properties under wet and dry conditions compared to the GEL/CS scaffold.
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.