ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Direct Integration of 3D Printing and Cryogel Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.
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.
- Silk cryogel and electrospun scaffold characterization for bone-tendon interface applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Advancing the 3Rs in bone tissue engineering: emergingFrontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Properties and Characterization of Cryogels: Structural, Mechanical, and Functional Insights.ACS omega · 2025Review
- PoreVision: A Program for Enhancing Efficiency and Accuracy in SEM Pore Analyses of Gels and Other Porous Materials.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Gradient scaffolds in bone-soft tissue interface engineering: Structural characteristics, fabrication techniques, and emerging trends.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Review
- Three-dimensional model of normal human dermal tissue using serial tissue sections.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
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
Cryogels, known for their biocompatibility and porous structure, lack mechanical strength, while 3D-printed scaffolds have excellent mechanical properties but limited porosity resolution. By combining a 3D-printed plastic gyroid lattice scaffold with a chitosan-gelatin cryogel scaffold, a scaffold can be created that balances the advantages of both fabrication methods. This study compared the pore diameter, swelling potential, mechanical characteristics, and cellular infiltration capability of combined scaffolds and control cryogels. The incorporation of the 3D-printed lattice demonstrated patient-specific geometry capabilities and significantly improved mechanical strength compared to the control cryogel. The combined scaffolds exhibited similar porosity and relative swelling ratio to the control cryogels. However, they had reduced elasticity, reduced absolute swelling capacity, and are potentially cytotoxic, which may affect their performance. This paper presents a novel approach to combine two scaffold types to retain the advantages of each scaffold type while mitigating their shortcomings.
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.