ArticlePolymers2022
Additive-Free Gelatine-Based Devices for Chondral Tissue Regeneration: Shaping Process Comparison among Mould Casting and Three-Dimensional Printing.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gelatine is a well-known and extensively studied biopolymer, widely used in recent decades to create biomaterials in many different ways, exploiting its molecular resemblance with collagen, the main constituent of the extra-cellular matrix, from which it is derived. Many have employed this biopolymer in tissue engineering and chemically modified (e.g., gelatin methacryloyl) or blended it with other polymers (e.g., alginate) to modulate or increase its performances and printability. Nevertheless, little is reported about its use as a stand-alone material. Moreover, despite the fact that multiple works have been reported on the realization of mould-casted and three-dimensional printed scaffolds in tissue engineering, a clear comparison among these two shaping processes, towards a comparable workflow starting from the same material, has never been published. Herein, we report the use of gelatine as stand-alone material, not modified, blended, or admixed to be processed or crosslinked, for the realization of suitable scaffolds for tissue engineering, towards the two previously mentioned shaping processes. To make the comparison reliable, the same pre-process (e.g., the gelatin solution preparation) and post-process (e.g., freeze-drying and crosslinking) steps were applied. In this study, gelatine solution was firstly rheologically characterized to find a formulation suitable for being processed with both the shaping processes selected. The realized scaffolds were then morphologically, phisico-chemically, mechanically, and biologically characterized to determine and compare their performances. Despite the fact that the same starting material was employed, as well as the same pre- and post-process steps, the two groups resulted, for most aspects, in diametrically opposed characteristics. The mould-casted scaffolds that resulted were characterized by small, little-interconnected, and random porosity, high resistance to compression and slow cell colonization, while the three-dimensional printed scaffolds displayed big, well-interconnected, and geometrically defined porosity, high elasticity and recover ability after compression, as well as fast and deep cell colonization.
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.