Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36431432›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Extrusion 3D (Bio)Printing of Alginate-Gelatin-Based Composite Scaffolds for Skeletal Muscle Tissue Engineering.

Surendrasingh Y Sonaye, Elif G Ertugral, Chandrasekhar R Kothapalli, Prabaha Sikder

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Graphene and TiACS applied bio materials · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Functional hydrogels for the repair and regeneration of tissue defects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  19. Global hotspots and emerging trends in 3D bioprinting research.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Surendrasingh Y SonayeMechanical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.
Elif G ErtugralChemical and Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9457-3851
Chandrasekhar R KothapalliChemical and Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8450-0640
Prabaha SikderMechanical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9302-2310
Cleveland State University · US

Funding

Cleveland State University STARTUP06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Volumetric muscle loss (VML), which involves the loss of a substantial portion of muscle tissue, is one of the most serious acute skeletal muscle injuries in the military and civilian communities. The injured area in VML may be so severely affected that the body loses its innate capacity to regenerate new functional muscles. State-of-the-art biofabrication methods such as bioprinting provide the ability to develop cell-laden scaffolds that could significantly expedite tissue regeneration. Bioprinted cell-laden scaffolds can mimic the extracellular matrix and provide a bioactive environment wherein cells can spread, proliferate, and differentiate, leading to new skeletal muscle tissue regeneration at the defect site. In this study, we engineered alginate−gelatin composite inks that could be used as bioinks. Then, we used the inks in an extrusion printing method to develop design-specific scaffolds for potential VML treatment. Alginate concentration was varied between 4−12% w/v, while the gelatin concentration was maintained at 6% w/v. Rheological analysis indicated that the alginate−gelatin inks containing 12% w/v alginate and 6% w/v gelatin were most suitable for developing high-resolution scaffolds with good structural fidelity. The printing pressure and speed appeared to influence the printing accuracy of the resulting scaffolds significantly. All the hydrogel inks exhibited shear thinning properties and acceptable viscosities, though 8−12% w/v alginate inks displayed properties ideal for printing and cell proliferation. Alginate content, crosslinking concentration, and duration played significant roles (p < 0.05) in influencing the scaffolds’ stiffness. Alginate scaffolds (12% w/v) crosslinked with 300, 400, or 500 mM calcium chloride (CaCl2) for 15 min yielded stiffness values in the range of 45−50 kPa, i.e., similar to skeletal muscle. The ionic strength of the crosslinking concentration and the alginate content significantly (p < 0.05) affected the swelling and degradation behavior of the scaffolds. Higher crosslinking concentration and alginate loading enhanced the swelling capacity and decreased the degradation kinetics of the printed scaffolds. Optimal CaCl2 crosslinking concentration (500 mM) and alginate content (12% w/v) led to high swelling (70%) and low degradation rates (28%) of the scaffolds. Overall, the results indicate that 12% w/v alginate and 6% w/v gelatin hydrogel inks are suitable as bioinks, and the printed scaffolds hold good potential for treating skeletal muscle defects such as VML.

Indexed as

alginate–gelatin scaffoldsbioprintingrheologyskeletal muscle tissue engineeringvolumetric muscle loss

Identifiers

PMID36431432
PMCPMC9695625
OpenAlexW4308702651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.