Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36555829›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Biodegradable and Non-Biodegradable Biomaterials and Their Effect on Cell Differentiation.

Rency Geevarghese, Seyedeh Sara Sajjadi, Andrzej Hudecki, Samad Sajjadi, Nahid Rezvani Jalal, Tayyebeh Madrakian, Mazaher Ahmadi, Małgorzata K Włodarczyk-Biegun, Saeid Ghavami, Wirginia Likus and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Bioengineered Bile Duct for Liver Regenerative Medicine and Bile Duct Reconstruction.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Recent Advances in Scaffolds for Guided Bone Regeneration.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Rency GeevargheseBiotechnology Center, Silesian University of Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland.
Seyedeh Sara SajjadiSchool of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1971653313, Iran.
Andrzej HudeckiŁukasiewicz Network-Institute of Non-Ferrous Metals, 44-121 Gliwice, Poland.
Samad SajjadiSchool of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1971653313, Iran.
Nahid Rezvani JalalFaculty of Chemistry, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan 6516738695, Iran.
Tayyebeh MadrakianFaculty of Chemistry, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan 6516738695, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6876-7633
Mazaher AhmadiFaculty of Chemistry, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan 6516738695, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-9969-170X
Małgorzata K Włodarczyk-BiegunBiotechnology Center, Silesian University of Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1419-6166
Saeid GhavamiAutophagy Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz 7134845794, Iran.
Wirginia LikusDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4738-6102
Krzysztof SiemianowiczDepartment of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1136-0947
Marek J ŁosBiotechnology Center, Silesian University of Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9518-1411
Bu-Ali Sina University · IRSilesian University of Technology · PLMedical University of Silesia · PLShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRŁukasiewicz Research Network - Institute of Non-Ferrous Metals · PLShiraz University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

National Agency for Academic Exchange PPN/PPO/2019/1/00004/U/0001National Science Center 2020/37/B/ST5/00743National Science Center UMO-2021/41/B/NZ7/04098Silesian University of Technology 32/007/SDU/10-21-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomaterials for tissue scaffolds are key components in modern tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Targeted reconstructive therapies require a proper choice of biomaterial and an adequate choice of cells to be seeded on it. The introduction of stem cells, and the transdifferentiation procedures, into regenerative medicine opened a new era and created new challenges for modern biomaterials. They must not only fulfill the mechanical functions of a scaffold for implanted cells and represent the expected mechanical strength of the artificial tissue, but furthermore, they should also assure their survival and, if possible, affect their desired way of differentiation. This paper aims to review how modern biomaterials, including synthetic (i.e., polylactic acid, polyurethane, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene terephthalate, ceramics) and natural (i.e., silk fibroin, decellularized scaffolds), both non-biodegradable and biodegradable, could influence (tissue) stem cells fate, regulate and direct their differentiation into desired target somatic cells.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsTissue ScaffoldsCell DifferentiationRegenerative MedicineTissue EngineeringBiocompatible Materialsbiological cuescollagengelatinlactic-co-glycolic acidL-lactic acidmatrigelpolycaprolactonepolyethylene glycolpolyethylene terephthalatetransdifferentiation

Identifiers

PMID36555829
PMCPMC9785373
OpenAlexW4312209908

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.