ArticlePeerJ2022
Comparison between hydroxyapatite and polycaprolactone in inducing osteogenic differentiation and augmenting maxillary bone regeneration in rats.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental pulp stem cells and hydroxyapatite: a promising combination for maxillary bone regeneration.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Poly-ε-Caprolactone 3D-Printed Porous Scaffold in a Femoral Condyle Defect Model Induces Early Osteo-Regeneration.Polymers · 2023Article
- Bioactive Scaffolds as a Promising Alternative for Enhancing Critical-Size Bone Defect Regeneration in the Craniomaxillofacial Region.ACS applied bio materials · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The selection of appropriate scaffold plays an important role in ensuring the success of bone regeneration. The use of scaffolds with different materials and their effect on the osteogenic performance of cells is not well studied and this can affect the selection of suitable scaffolds for transplantation. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the comparative ability of two different synthetic scaffolds, mainly hydroxyapatite (HA) and polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds in promoting Method: Results: MC3T3-E1 cells on the HA scaffold showed the highest cell viability. The cell viability on both scaffolds decreased after 14 days of culture, which reflects the dominant occurrence of osteoblast differentiation. An early sign of osteoblast differentiation can be detected on the PCL scaffold. However, cells on the HA scaffold showed more prominent results with intense mineralized nodules and significantly ( Conclusion: Different scaffold materials of HA and PCL might have influenced the bone regeneration ability of MC3T3-E1. Regardless,
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.