ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Allogenic Stem Cells Carried by Porous Silicon Scaffolds for Active Bone Regeneration In Vivo.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural Nacre-Derived Biomimetic Materials for In Vivo Bone Regeneration.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Early Biological Response to Poly(ε-caprolactone) PCL-Bioactive Glass Composites Obtained by 3D Printing as Bone Substitutes.Polymers · 2025Article
- Recent Advances of Macrostructural Porous Silicon for Biomedical Applications.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Review
- Curcumin-loaded scaffolds in bone regeneration.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Effects of Oral Cavity Stem Cell Sources and Serum-Free Cell Culture on Hydrogel Encapsulation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Bone Regeneration: An In Vitro Investigation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Nanostructured Porous Silicon for Bone Tissue Engineering: Kinetics of Particle Degradation and Si-Controlled Release.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To date, bone regeneration techniques use many biomaterials for bone grafting with limited efficiencies. For this purpose, tissue engineering combining biomaterials and stem cells is an important avenue of development to improve bone regeneration. Among potentially usable non-toxic and bioresorbable scaffolds, porous silicon (pSi) is an interesting biomaterial for bone engineering. The possibility of modifying its surface can allow a better cellular adhesion as well as a control of its rate of resorption. Moreover, release of silicic acid upon resorption of its nanostructure has been previously proved to enhance stem cell osteodifferentiation by inducing calcium phosphate formation. In the present study, we used a rat tail model to experiment bone tissue engineering with a critical size defect. Two groups with five rats per group of male Wistar rats were used. In each rat, four vertebrae were used for biomaterial implantation. Randomized bone defects were filled with pSi particles alone or pSi particles carrying dental pulp stem cells (DPSC). Regeneration was evaluated in comparison to empty defect and defects filled with xenogenic bone substitute (Bio-Oss
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.