ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
Enhancing Bone Scaffold Fabrication: A Comparative Study of Manual Casting and Automated 3D Bioprinting.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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.
- Integrating Additive and Traditional Manufacturing for Multiscale Bone Tissue Engineering Scaffolds.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Biocompatible Thermoplastics in Additive Manufacturing of Bone Defect Fillers: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While fabrication of bone scaffolds is important for the development of tissue engineering, traditional techniques have typically been prone to either scaling or reproducibility issues. This paper highlights a strategy for automated 3D printing and bioprinting techniques that enhance precision and efficiency in the production of PLGA-HA scaffolds. We realized significant improvements in efficiency, reproducibility, and scalability through optimization of 3D printing parameters, improvement of material handling, and refinement of the fabrication process. Precise measurement consequently minimized material waste; the introduction of a mesh filter allowed for high-throughput experimentation without compromising the integrity of individual scaffolds, streamlining the workflow. Combining automated casting with state-of-the-art 3D bioprinting, our experimental methodology precisely applied the bioactive materials, reducing the processing time fivefold and enhancing precision. Besides, automated casting produced thicker, better-quality scaffolds averaging 0.02354 g, which is against 0.01169 g using the manual approach, effectively doubling the retention of the PLGA-HA coating on a PVA mold. Excellent cell viability and adhesion on automated scaffolds have been further underlined for application in tissue engineering during in vitro studies using multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Although conventional techniques, such as injection molding, are standard for large lots, 3D printing has advantages in scaffold fabrication regarding control over geometry and homogeneous material properties. Equally important, these characteristics are necessary to achieve repeatable and up-scaled experimental results.
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.