ArticleRSC advances2025
Material characterization and biocompatibility of polycarbonate-based polyurethane for biomedical implant applications.
Article in RSC advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polyurethane-Chitosan Composites for Tissue Engineering: Novel Strategies, Therapeutic Potential and Limitations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Engineering and Characterisation of 3D-Printed Timolol Maleate Implants for Long-Acting Glaucoma Treatment.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- From Polymer Structure to Valve Function: A Multiscale Evaluation of Polycarbonate Polyurethanes for Polymeric Mitral Valves.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- In Vitro Calcification Evaluation of Polycarbonate Urethane-Impact of Production Processes.Artificial organs · 2026Article
- Room-Temperature Self-Healing Polyurethanes Containing Halloysite Clay with Enhanced Mechanical Properties.Polymers · 2025Article
- Novel Magnetically Charged Grafts for Vascular Repair: Process Optimization, Mechanical Characterization and In Vitro Validation.Polymers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polycarbonate polyurethane (PCU) resins are widely used in biomedical applications due to their excellent mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and resistance to degradation. The performance of these materials in implantable devices depends on factors such as hardness, molecular weight, and their interactions with cells and tissues. Understanding the relationship between material properties and biological outcomes is essential for optimizing their use in medical devices. In this study, three PCU resins were selected for evaluation as potential polymer implant materials: Chronoflex (CF) 65D, and two Carbothane (CB) samples 95A with different molecular weights. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) revealed that the storage modulus was primarily influenced by the hard domain content, with greater elasticity observed at higher frequencies and lower temperatures. Tensile hysteresis behavior at room temperature was strongly correlated with hardness, with lower hardness samples demonstrating improved strain recovery. Cytotoxicity testing indicated cell viability above 70% for both CF and CB films. Normal Human Lung Fibroblasts (NHLF) grown on CF films exhibited a more homogeneous distribution across the surface, adopting an elongated morphology that conformed closely to the underlying topography. In contrast, cells on CB films tend to aggregate, forming clustered structures. This study demonstrates that the mechanical and biological performance of PCU resins is closely linked to their hardness, molecular weight, and structural composition. The results highlight that a morphology with a higher proportion of hard domains produces a more uniform and favorable environment for cell adhesion and organization.
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.