ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Comparative analysis of solvent-based and solvent-free (melting) methods for fabricating 3D-printed polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composite bone scaffolds: physicochemical/mechanical analyses and
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Rheological Behavior, Filament Stability, and Microstructure of an Extrusion-Processable Kefiran-PG Formulation.Polymers · 2026Article
- Pore morphology of bijel-templated materials promotes migration and downregulates αSMA expression in human fibroblasts.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The study conducts a comparative analysis between two prominent methods for fabricating composites for bone scaffolds-the (solid) solvent method and the solvent-free (melting) method. While previous research has explored these methods individually, this study provides a direct comparison of their outcomes in terms of physicochemical properties, cytocompatibility, and mechanical strength. We also analyse their workflow and scalability potentials. Design/methodology/approach: Polycaprolactone (PCL) and hydroxyapatite (HA) composites were prepared using solvent (chloroform) and melting (180°C) methods, then 3D-printed using an extrusion-based 3D printer to fabricate scaffolds (8 × 8 × 4 mm). Rheology, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), accelerated degradation, mechanical/compression test, wettability/contact angle, live/dead assay, and DNA quantification (Picogreen) assays were evaluated. Findings: The study finds that scaffolds made via the solid solvent method have higher mechanical strength and degradation rate as compared to those from the melting method, while both methods ensure adequate cytocompatibility and homogenous hydroxyapatite distribution, supporting their use in bone tissue engineering. Originality: This research investigates the utility of chloroform as a solvent for PCL composite in a direct comparison with the melting method. It also highlights the differences in workflows between the two methods and their scalability implications, emphasizing the importance of considering workflow efficiency and the potential for automation in scaffold fabrication processes for bone tissue engineering applications.
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.