ArticleRSC advances2020
Three-dimensional cell printing of gingival fibroblast/acellular dermal matrix/gelatin-sodium alginate scaffolds and their biocompatibility evaluation
Article in RSC advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Advances in Periodontal Regenerative Medicine: A Focus on the Role of Mechanical Stimulation.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- 3D Bioprinting: Shaping the Future of Periodontal Tissue Regeneration and Disease Management.Cureus · 2025Review
- High-Density Dermal Matrix for Soft Tissue Augmentation Using a Matrix Tissue Graft Technique-A Comprehensive Multicenter Analysis of 20 Implants: A 1-Year Follow-Up Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Hydrogel-Based Biomaterial as a Scaffold for Gingival Regeneration: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Polymers · 2023Review
- Dental implant treatment in vascularized bone flaps after jaw reconstruction.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tissue engineering has emerged as a promising approach for soft tissue regeneration. Three-dimensional (3D) cell printing showed great potential for producing cell-encapsulated scaffolds to repair tissue defects. The advantage of 3D cell printing technology is precise cell loading in scaffolds to achieve tissue regeneration instead of only relying on the cells from surrounding tissue or blood. A new acellular dermal matrix/gelatin-sodium alginate (ADM/A/G) scaffold with living gingival fibroblasts was constructed by 3D cell printing technology for potential oral soft tissue regeneration in this study, and the biological characteristics of the 3D cell printing scaffolds were evaluated. The residue of nucleic acid and growth factors in ADM were detected. Three biomaterials were mixed at an appropriate radio with human gingival fibroblasts (hGFs) to prepare bioinks. Two kinds of layer scaffolds were fabricated by 3D cell printing technology. The mechanical strength and degradability of the scaffolds were determined by measuring their compressive modulus and mass loss. CCK-8 assay and calcein-AM/PI staining were conducted to detect the cell proliferation and viability in 3D cell printing scaffolds. The morphology of the hGFs in the scaffolds were observed using SEM and FITC-phalloidin staining. The expression of COL1A1, PECAM1, and VEGF-A of hGFs in the scaffolds were quantified by qRT-PCR. The gelatin-sodium alginate (A/G) scaffolds were used as control group in all experiments. Compared with the control group, 3D cell printing ADM/A/G scaffolds showed better mechanical strength and longer degradation time. The ADM/A/G scaffolds obviously had a better promotion effect on cell proliferation and viability. Most of the hGFs observed had a fully extended spindle morphology in the ADM/A/G scaffolds but oval morphology in the control group. The expression of COL1A1 was significantly higher than in the control group with time, and the expression of PECAM1 and VEGF-A was slightly higher in ADM/A/G scaffolds on day 14. 3D cell printing gingival fibroblast-ADM/A/G scaffolds showed excellent biological properties, which could be potentially useful in oral soft tissue regeneration.
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.