ArticleRegenerative therapy2024
In vivo biocompatibility assessment of 3D printed bioresorbable polymers for brain tissue regeneration. A feasibility study.
Article in Regenerative therapy, 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.
- Foreign body reaction: towards a macrophage-centered adverse outcome pathway for fibrotic encapsulation.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Printable biomaterials for 3D brain regenerative scaffolds: An in vivo biocompatibility assessment.Regenerative therapy · 2025Article
- Long-Gap Sciatic Nerve Regeneration Using 3D-Printed Nerve Conduits with Controlled FGF-2 Release.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- Vat Photopolymerization of CeOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The limited capacity of brain tissue to regenerate after acute injury, hampered by cell death, edema and inflammation, has led to an interest in promising and innovative approaches such as implantable regenerative scaffolds designed to improve brain plasticity. Leveraging the capabilities of bioprinting, these scaffolds can be tailored to match the intricate architecture of the brain. Methods: In this methodological study, we performed in vivo biocompatibility assessments after a brain lesion on three distinct bioeliminable or bioresorbable materials: Poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA), Polycaprolactone (PCL) and a PEGDA mixed with gelatin methacrylate (PEGDA-GelMA). Results: A scaffold with a complex shape was printed with patterns, spatial resolution and porosity adapted to cerebral cortex reconstruction. In vivo evaluations were complemented by behavioral monitoring, affirming the safety of these materials. High-resolution T2 MRI imaging effectively captured scaffold structures and demonstrated their non-invasive utility in monitoring degradability. ASL MRI imaging quantified cerebral blood flow and was positively and significantly correlated with lectin immunofluorescent labeling. It may be used to non-invasively monitor progressive revascularization of implants.PEGDA produced an intense foreign-body response, encapsulated by a fibro-inflammatory barrier. On the other hand, PCL provoked a controlled inflammatory reaction and facilitated cell migration into the scaffold, although it induced a fibrotic response around PCL fibers. Conversely, the PEGDA-GelMA composite emerged as a promising candidate for intracerebral implantation. It facilitated the creation of a permissive glial layer, while also inducing neovascularization and attracting neuronal progenitors. Conclusion: Behavior, MRI monitoring and histology allowed a thorough following of biomaterial biocompatibility. The collective findings position PEGDA-GelMA as a convincing biomaterial option as a basis for treating severe brain lesions, offering new avenues in the search for effective treatments.
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.