ArticlePolymers2024
Comparison of Printable Biomaterials for Use in Neural Tissue Engineering: An In Vitro Characterization and In Vivo Biocompatibility Assessment.
Article in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hyaluronic acid-alginate hydrazone crosslinked hydrogels support the generation and maturation of V2a interneurons.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2026Article
- Mechanobiology-based strategies for the maturation of biofabricated cartilage constructs.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensionally Printed Microsystems to Facilitate Flow-Based Study of Cells from Neurovascular Barriers of the Retina.Micromachines · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nervous system traumatic injuries are prevalent in our society, with a significant socioeconomic impact. Due to the highly complex structure of the neural tissue, the treatment of these injuries is still a challenge. Recently, 3D printing has emerged as a promising alternative for producing biomimetic scaffolds, which can lead to the restoration of neural tissue function. The objective of this work was to compare different biomaterials for generating 3D-printed scaffolds for use in neural tissue engineering. For this purpose, four thermoplastic biomaterials, ((polylactic acid) (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), Filaflex (FF) (assessed here for the first time for biomedical purposes), and Flexdym (FD)) and gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) hydrogel were subjected to printability and mechanical tests, in vitro cell-biomaterial interaction analyses, and in vivo biocompatibility assessment. The thermoplastics showed superior printing results in terms of resolution and shape fidelity, whereas FD and GelMA revealed great viscoelastic properties. GelMA demonstrated a greater cell viability index after 7 days of in vitro cell culture. Moreover, all groups displayed connective tissue encapsulation, with some inflammatory cells around the scaffolds after 10 days of in vivo implantation. Future studies will determine the usefulness and in vivo therapeutic efficacy of novel neural substitutes based on the use of these 3D-printed scaffolds.
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.