ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2022
In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed Silica-Based Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D-Printed Composite Scaffolds Containing SiOACS omega · 2026Review
- Assessing the Angiogenic Potential of Poly(ε-Caprolactone) PCL/Bioactive Glass Composites in a Co-Culture Model of ASCs and HMEC-1.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Bioglasses Versus Bioactive Calcium Phosphate Derivatives as Advanced Ceramics in Tissue Engineering: Comparative and Comprehensive Study, Current Trends, and Innovative Solutions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Evolution in Bone Tissue Regeneration: From Grafts to Innovative Biomaterials.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- GelMA hydrogels reinforced by PCL@GelMA nanofibers and bioactive glass induce bone regeneration in critical size cranial defects.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Article
- Mesoporous silica nanoparticles as a drug delivery mechanism.Open life sciences · 2024Review
- Additive Manufacturing of Polymer/Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Regenerative Medicine: A Review.Polymers · 2023Review
- Zinc and Strontium-Substituted Bioactive Glass Nanoparticle/Alginate Composites Scaffold for Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Three-Dimensional Impression of Biomaterials for Alveolar Graft: Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Bioactive Glass-Ceramic Scaffolds Coated with Hyaluronic Acid-Fatty Acid Conjugates: A Feasibility Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Gelatin and Bioactive Glass Composites for Tissue Engineering: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Review
- 3D-Printing for Critical Sized Bone Defects: Current Concepts and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Mechanical Properties of Robocast Glass Scaffolds Assessed through Micro-CT-Based Finite Element Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioactive glasses are often designed as porous implantable templates in which newly-formed bone can grow in three dimensions (3D). This research work aims to investigate the bone regenerative capability of silicate bioactive glass scaffolds produced by robocasting in comparison with powder and granule-like materials (oxide system: 47.5SiO
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.