ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
3D Printing and Property of Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite Scaffold.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hydroxyapatite-based bone repair biomaterials based on clinical heterogeneity: modification strategies, performance regulation, and personalized repair pathways.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 3D printing of a biomimetic scaffold with a high hydroxyapatite (HA) content (>80%) and excellent mechanical property is a serious challenge because of the difficulty of forming and printing, insufficient cohesion, and low mechanical property of the scaffold. In this study, hydroxyapatite whiskers (HAWs), with their superior mechanical property, biodegradability, and biocompatibility, were used to reinforce spherical HA scaffolds by 3D printing. The compressive strength and energy absorption capacity of HAW-reinforced spherical HA (HAW/HA) scaffolds increased when the HAW/HA ratio increased from 0:10 to 4:6 and then dropped with any further increases in the HAW/HA ratio. Bioceramic content (HAWs and spherical HA) in the scaffolds reached 83%, and the scaffold with a HAW/HA ratio of 4:6 (4-HAW/HA) exhibited an optimum compressive strength and energy absorption capacity. The scaffold using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) as an additive possessed a good bonding between HA and PVA as well as a higher strength, which allowed the scaffold to bear a higher stress at the same strain. The compressive strength and toughness of the 4-HAW/HA-PVA scaffold were 1.96 and 1.63 times that of the 4-HAW/HA scaffold with hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), respectively. The mechanical property and inorganic components of the biomimetic HAW/HA scaffold were similar to those of human bone, which would make it ideal for repairing bone defects.
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.