Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38794619›Full record

ArticlePolymers2024

Comparison of Printable Biomaterials for Use in Neural Tissue Engineering: An In Vitro Characterization and In Vivo Biocompatibility Assessment.

Miguel Etayo-Escanilla, Noelia Campillo, Paula Ávila-Fernández, José Manuel Baena, Jesús Chato-Astrain, Fernando Campos, David Sánchez-Porras, Óscar Darío García-García, Víctor Carriel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Miguel Etayo-EscanillaDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0009-0000-9205-7933
Noelia CampilloREGEMAT 3D, Avenida Del Conocimiento 41, A-111, 18016 Granada, Spain.
Paula Ávila-FernándezDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0328-4112
José Manuel BaenaREGEMAT 3D, Avenida Del Conocimiento 41, A-111, 18016 Granada, Spain.
Jesús Chato-AstrainDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2378-2696
Fernando CamposDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0034-9264
David Sánchez-PorrasDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4755-7741
Óscar Darío García-GarcíaDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4710-0733
Víctor CarrielDepartment of Histology, Tissue Engineering Group, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8114-5644

Funding

Ayudas Torres Quevedo PTQ2019-010731FPU Fellowship, Spanish Ministry of Universities FPU21/ 06183Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Unión Europea, Agencia Estatal de Investigación, España Grant CPP2021-009070Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain (Instituto de Salud Carlos III) FIS PI20/00318, PI23/00337
6 · The paper itself

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

3D printingbiocompatibilitybiomaterialsbiomechanicneural tissue engineeringscaffolds

Identifiers

PMID38794619
PMCPMC11125121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.