ArticleACS omega2025
Development and Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Scaffolds of Biosilica from Marine Sponges for Bone Tissue Engineering.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This study compared the physicochemical characteristics and biological effects of two 3D-printed biosilica (BS) scaffolds (grid and gyroid). The methods included scanning electron microscopy (SEM), porosity, mass loss, pH assessment, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The mechanical evaluation involved a compression test, and the in vitro tests used cell adhesion assays with osteoblastic and fibroblastic cell lines. SEM showed BS spicules in both models at day 0 with signs of degradation throughout the experimental immersion periods, forming a homogeneous network with interaction with alginate. Porosity measurements showed an average of 85.9% ± 0.9 for the grid model and 83.6% ± 0.7 for the gyroid model. The gyroid model demonstrated higher values in the compression test, a decrease in pH on day 1, and no difference for both models on days 3, 7, and 14. Mass loss was greatest in the gyroid model on day 21. FTIR tests showed characteristic peaks for ALG and BS. EDS detected silica (Si), chlorine (Cl), and calcium (Ca). In the cell adhesion assay, both models supported the adhesion and proliferation of L929 (fibroblast) and MC3T3-E1 (osteoblastic) cells, with the gyroid model showing better elongation and cell morphology. Overall, the gyroid model showed better physicochemical properties, higher mechanical strength, and improved biological performance compared to the grid model, making it a promising option for tissue engineering.
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.