ArticlePharmaceutics2025
Three-Dimensional-Printed Osteochondral Scaffold with Biomimetic Surface Curvature for Osteochondral Regeneration.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2025. 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.
- Green and Scalable Manufacturing of Biodegradable Polymer Scaffolds: Solvent-Free Processing, Supercritical COPolymers · 2026Review
- Construction of organoids using bioprinting technology: a frontier exploration of cartilage repair.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTreatment of osteochondral defects is hindered by several challenges, including the failure of traditional scaffolds with a predefined cylindrical or cuboid shape to comprehensively match the natural osteochondral tissue. Herein, we employed reverse modeling and three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies to prepare subchondral bone and cartilage.
methodsThe osteochondral scaffold was prepared by bonding the subchondral bone and cartilage layers, and the curvature distribution and biomechanical behavior were compared with those of the native tissue. Biocompatibility and osteochondral regeneration performance were further evaluated using cell adhesion and proliferation assays, as well as animal osteochondral defect repair tests.
resultsWe found that increasing the printing temperature or decreasing the layer height improved the dimensional accuracy of printed subchondral bones, whereas increasing the exposure time or decreasing the layer height enhanced the dimensional accuracy of the printed cartilage. Biomimetic scaffolds exhibited curvature distribution and biomechanical behavior more similar to native tissues than traditional cylindrical scaffolds. Incorporating gelatin methacryloyl into poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate markedly improved the biocompatibility, and correspondingly prepared osteochondral scaffolds had better osteochondral regeneration ability than the traditional scaffolds.
conclusionsOsteochondral scaffolds exhibiting biomimetic morphology and an internal structure could be prepared based on reverse modeling and 3D printing, facilitating personalized osteochondral injury treatment.
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.