ArticleInternational journal of bioprinting2023
Development of polycaprolactone grafts with improved physical properties and body stability using a screw extrusion-type 3D bioprinter.
Article in International journal of bioprinting, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinter including screw extruder was developed, and the polycaprolactone (PCL) grafts fabricated by screw-type and pneumatic pressure-type bioprinters were comparatively evaluated. The density and tensile strength of the single layers printed by the screw-type were 14.07% and 34.76% higher, respectively, than those of the single layers produced by the pneumatic pressure-type. The adhesive force, tensile strength, and bending strength of the PCL grafts printed by the screw-type bioprinter were 2.72 times, 29.89%, and 67.76% higher, respectively, than those of the PCL grafts prepared by the pneumatic pressure-type bioprinter. By evaluating the consistency with the original image of the PCL grafts, we found that it had a value of about 98.35%. The layer width of the printing structure was 485.2 ± 0.004919 μm, which was 99.5% to 101.8% compared to the set value (500 μm), indicating high accuracy and uniformity. The printed graft had no cytotoxicity, and there were no impurities in the extract test. In the in vivo studies, the tensile strength of the sample 12 months after implantation was reduced by 50.37% and 85.43% compared to the initial point of the sample printed by the screw-type and the pneumatic pressure-type, respectively. Through observing the fractures of the samples at 9- and 12-month samples, we found that the PCL grafts prepared by the screw-type had better in vivo stability. Therefore, the printing system developed in this study can be used as a treatment for regenerative medicine.
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.