ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Determining the Permeability of Porous Bioceramic Scaffolds: Significance, Overview of Current Methods and Challenges Ahead.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydraulic Pressure-Programmed Molecular Transport in Tough Hydrogels.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Engineering Approaches to Modify Immunomodulatory Functions of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs): Tissue Regeneration and Clinical Application.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in 3D Bioprinting of Porous Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: A Narrative and Critical Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The "architectural suitability" of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering is commonly evaluated by assessing the pore volume and the mean pore size (or pore size distribution, if possible) and comparing these values with the reference ranges of human cancellous bone. However, these two parameters cannot precisely describe the complex architecture of bone scaffolds and just provide a preliminary comparative criterion. Permeability is suggested as a more comprehensive and significant parameter to characterize scaffold architecture and mass transport capability, being also related to bone in-growth and, thus, functional properties. However, assessing the permeability of bioactive ceramics and glass scaffolds is a complex task from both methodological and experimental viewpoints. After providing an overview of the fundamentals about porosity in scaffolds, this review explores the different experimental and numerical approaches used to determine the permeability of porous bioceramics, describing the methodologies used (pump-based, gravity-based, acoustic and computational methods) and highlighting advantages and limitations to overcome (e.g., reliability issues and need for better standardization of the experimental procedures).
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.