ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2022
The Mineralization of Various 3D-Printed PCL Composites.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exosome-functionalized collagen-coated 3D-printed PCL scaffold for enhanced osteogenic differentiation and bone regeneration: an in vitro and in vivo study.Journal of biological engineering · 2025Article
- Biodegradable Polymers and Textiles.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Nano-Topographically Guided, Biomineralized, 3D-Printed Polycaprolactone Scaffolds with Urine-Derived Stem Cells for Promoting Bone Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Release kinetics of growth factors loaded into β-TCP ceramics in anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Towards Polycaprolactone-Based Scaffolds for Alveolar Bone Tissue Engineering: A Biomimetic Approach in a 3D Printing Technique.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this project, different calcification methods for collagen and collagen coatings were compared in terms of their applicability for 3D printing and production of collagen-coated scaffolds. For this purpose, scaffolds were printed from polycaprolactone PCL using the EnvisionTec 3D Bioplotter and then coated with collagen. Four different coating methods were then applied: hydroxyapatite (HA) powder directly in the collagen coating, incubation in 10× SBF, coating with alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and coating with poly-L-aspartic acid. The results were compared by ESEM, µCT, TEM, and EDX. HA directly in the collagen solution resulted in a pH change and thus an increase in viscosity, leading to clumping on the scaffolds. As a function of incubation time in 10× SBF as well as in ALP, HA layer thickness increased, while no coating on the collagen layer was apparently observed with poly-L-aspartic acid. Only ultrathin sections and TEM with SuperEDX detected nano crystalline HA in the collagen layer. Exclusively the incubation in poly-L-aspartic acid led to HA crystals within the collagen coating compared to all other methods where the HA layers formed in different forms only at the collagen layer.
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.