ArticleTissue engineering. Part C, Methods2024
Characterization of Acellular Cartilage Matrix-Sodium Alginate Scaffolds in Various Proportions.
Article in Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioprinting in Tissue Repair and Its ENT Applications.Polymers · 2026Review
- Innovative Approaches in Microtia Treatment: Advancements in Tissue Engineering and Scaffold Design.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technology has provided a new solution to address the shortage of donors, multiple surgeries, and aesthetic concerns in microtia reconstruction surgery. The production of bioinks is the most critical aspect of 3D bioprinting. Acellular cartilage matrix (ACM) and sodium alginate (SA) are commonly used 3D bioprinting materials, and there have been reports of their combined use. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluations on ACM-SA scaffolds with different proportions. In this study, bioinks were prepared by mixing different proportions of decellularized rabbit ear cartilage powder and SA and then printed using 3D bioprinting technology and crosslinked with calcium ions to fabricate scaffolds. The physical properties, biocompatibility, and toxicity of ACM-SA scaffolds with different proportions were compared. The adhesion and proliferation of rabbit adipose-derived stem cells on ACM-SA scaffolds of different proportions, as well as the secretion of Collagen Type II, were evaluated under an adipose-derived stem cell chondrogenic induction medium. The following conclusions were drawn: when the proportion of SA in the ACM-SA scaffolds was <30%, the printed structure failed to form. The ACM-SA scaffolds in proportions from 1:9 to 6:4 showed no significant cytotoxicity, among which the 5:5 proportion of ACM-SA scaffold was superior in terms of adhesiveness and promoting cell proliferation and differentiation. Although a higher proportion of SA can provide greater mechanical strength, it also significantly increases the swelling ratio and reduces cell proliferation capabilities. Overall, the 5:5 proportion of ACM-SA scaffold demonstrated a more desirable biological and physical performance.
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.