ArticlePolymers2025
Effect of Processing Parameters on the Printability and Mechano-Biological Properties of Polycaprolactone-Bioactive Glass Composites for 3D-Printed Scaffold Fabrication.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Synergistic Effects of Bioactive Glass on the Physicochemical Properties and In Vitro Bioactivity of 3D-Printed PCL Scaffolds.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Green and Scalable Manufacturing of Biodegradable Polymer Scaffolds: Solvent-Free Processing, Supercritical COPolymers · 2026Review
- Review
- Mesoporous Bioactive Glasses: A Powerful Tool in Tissue Engineering and Drug Delivery.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Waste-derived carbon nanomaterials for electrochemical applications: toward a circular and sustainable future.RSC advances · 2025Review
- PorMe: A validated open-source image-based pore size and porosity measurement tool for 3D-printed structures.MethodsX · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Direct ink writing (DIW) is an attractive, extrusion-based, additive manufacturing method for fabricating scaffold structures with controlled porosity using custom composite inks. Polycaprolactone-bioactive glass (PCL-BG) inks have gained attention for bone applications, but optimizing the formulation and fabrication of PCL-BG-based inks for improved printability and desired mechano-biological properties remains a challenge. This study employs a two-step design to systematically evaluate the effect of three factors in terms of PCL-BG composite printability and mechano-biological properties: ink preparation (acetone or dichloromethane (DCM) as the solvent, and mechanical compounding), the extrusion temperature (90 °C, 110 °C, and 130 °C), and the BG content (0%, 10%, and 20% BG). Pure PCL was used as the control. Rheological, calorimetric, and thermo-gravimetric analyses were conducted before printing. Cylindrical scaffolds and solid wells were printed to evaluate the printability, mechanical properties, and cytocompatibility. The scaffold porosity and pore size were carefully examined. Mechanical tests demonstrated that composite formulations with added BG and higher printing temperatures increased the elastic modulus and yield strength. However, PCL-DCM-BG combinations exhibited increased brittleness with higher BG content. Despite concerns about the toxic solvent DCM, the cytocompatibility was comparable to pure PCL for all ink preparation methods. The results suggest that the interaction between the ink preparation solvent, the BG content, and the printing temperature is critical for material design and fabrication planning in bone tissue engineering applications, providing insights into optimizing PCL-BG composite ink formulations for 3D printing in bone tissue engineering.
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.