ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2025
3D printed Gel/PTH@PAHA scaffolds with both enhanced osteogenesis and mechanical properties for repair of large bone defects.
Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The mechano-immune-vesicle regulatory circuit: a systems framework for bone homeostasis and regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Topological optimization synergized with a high-activity nano-hydroxyapatite coating to enhance bone regeneration in a porous titanium alloy scaffold.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Article
- Injectable Mn-Icariin-functionalized silk fibroin/PEG hydrogels restore redox homeostasis and reprogram osteogenic-angiogenic coupling for diabetic bone regeneration.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The repair of large bone defects continues to pose a significant challenge in clinical orthopedics. Successful repairs require not only adequate mechanical strength but also exceptional osteogenic activity for successful clinical translation. Composite materials based on polyamide 66 (PA66) and hydroxyapatite have been widely used in various clinical settings. However, existing PA66/hydroxyapatite composites often lack sufficient osteogenic stimulation despite their favorable mechanical properties, which limit their overall clinical efficacy. In this study, we fabricated a polyamide 66/nano-hydroxyapatite (PAHA) scaffold using an extruder and fused deposition modeling-based 3D printing technology. Subsequently, gelatin methacrylamide (GelMA) containing teriparatide (PTH) was incorporated into the PAHA scaffold to construct the Gel/PTH@PAHA scaffold. Material characterization results indicated that the compressive modulus of elasticity and compressive strength of the Gel/PTH@PAHA scaffold were 172.47 ± 5.48 MPa and 25.55 ± 2.19 MPa, respectively.
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.