ArticlePolymers2024
Innovative Biocompatible Blend Scaffold of Poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) and Poly(ε-caprolactone) for Bone Tissue Engineering: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Injectable Silk Fibroin-Puerarin Hydrogels with Tunable Supramolecular Organization as a Potential Platform for Tissue Engineering.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Improving Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate) Properties Using Nanocellulose in Biomedical Applications: Thermal, Mechanical and Biological Studies.International journal of molecular 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the biocompatibility of dense and porous forms of Poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), Poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL), and their 75/25 blend for bone tissue engineering applications. The biomaterials were characterized morphologically using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and the thickness and porosity of the scaffolds were determined. Functional assessments of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) included the MTT assay, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) production, and morphological and cytochemical analyses. Moreover, these polymers were implanted into rats to evaluate their in vivo performance. The morphology and FTIR spectra of the scaffolds were consistent with the expected results. Porous polymers were thicker than dense polymers, and porosity was higher than 92% in all samples. The cells exhibited good viability, activity, and growth on the scaffolds. A higher number of cells was observed on dense polymers, likely due to their smaller surface area. ALP production occurred in all samples, but enzyme activity was more intense in PCL samples. The scaffolds did not interfere with the osteogenic capacity of MSCs, and mineralized nodules were present in all samples. Histological analysis revealed new bone formation in all samples, although pure PHBV exhibited lower results compared to the other blends. In vivo results indicated that dense PCL and the dense 75/25 blend were the best materials tested, with PCL tending to improve the performance of PHBV in vivo.
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.