ArticleScientific reports2024
Design of chemobrionic and biochemobrionic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- SHED-exosomes functionalized micro-nano bioactive glass/PCL membrane regulates macrophage polarization and promotes osteogenic differentiation.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
- Diffusion-controlled growth of a planar chemical garden wall before osmotic fracture.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Chemobrionic systems have attracted great attention in material science for development of novel biomimetic materials. This study aims to design a new bioactive material by integrating biosilica into chemobrionic structure, which will be called biochemobrionic, and to comparatively investigate the use of both chemobrionic and biochemobrionic materials as bone scaffolds. Biosilica, isolated from Amphora sp. diatom, was integrated into chemobrionic structure, and a comprehensive set of analysis was conducted to evaluate their morphological, chemical, mechanical, thermal, and biodegradation properties. Then, the effects of both scaffolds on cell biocompatibility and osteogenic differentiation capacity were assessed. Cells attached to the scaffolds, spread out, and covered the entire surface, indicating the absence of cytotoxicity. Biochemobrionic scaffold exhibited a higher level of mineralization and bone formation than the chemobrionic structure due to the osteogenic activity of biosilica. These results present a comprehensive and pioneering understanding of the potential of (bio)chemobrionics for bone regeneration.
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.