ArticleBiofabrication2024
Effect of viscosity of gelatin methacryloyl-based bioinks on bone cells.
Article in Biofabrication, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D bioprinting of microfluidic systems for cardiac regenerative medicine: from biofabrication to organ-on-a-chip.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Review
- Periodontal ligament stem cells-loaded photocrosslinking GelMA/PEGDA scaffolds for periodontal bone regeneration.BMC biotechnology · 2026Article
- Rheological, Structural, and Biological Trade-Offs in Bioink Design for 3D Bioprinting.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Protocol for 3D Bioprinting a Co-culture Skin Model Using a Natural Fibrin-Based Bioink as an Infection Model.Bio-protocol · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The viscosity of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA)-based bioinks generates shear stresses throughout the printing process that can affect cell integrity, reduce cell viability, cause morphological changes, and alter cell functionality. This study systematically investigated the impact of the viscosity of GelMA-gelatin bioinks on osteoblast-like cells in 2D and 3D culture conditions. Three bioinks with low, medium, and high viscosity prepared by supplementing a 5% GelMA solution with different concentrations of gelatin were evaluated. Cell responses were studied in a 2D environment after printing and incubation in non-cross-linked bioinks that caused the gelatin and GelMA to dissolve and release cells for attachment to tissue culture plates. The increased viscosity of the bioinks significantly affected cell area and aspect ratio. Cells printed using the bioink with medium viscosity exhibited greater metabolic activity and proliferation rate than those printed using the high viscosity bioink and even the unprinted control cells. Additionally, cells printed using the bioink with high viscosity demonstrated notably elevated expression levels of alkaline phosphatase and bone morphogenetic protein-2 genes. In the 3D condition, the printed cell-laden hydrogels were photo-cross-linked prior to incubation. The medium viscosity bioink supported greater cell proliferation compared to the high viscosity bioink. However, there were no significant differences in the expression of osteogenic markers between the medium and high viscosity bioinks. Therefore, the choice between medium and high viscosity bioinks should be based on the desired outcomes and objectives of the bone tissue engineering application. Furthermore, the bioprinting procedure with the medium viscosity bioink was used as an automated technique for efficiently seeding cells onto 3D printed porous titanium scaffolds for bone tissue engineering purposes.
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.