ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
In Vitro Biological Properties Assessment of 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite-Polylactic Acid Scaffolds Intended for Bone Regeneration.
Article in Journal of functional 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.
- Design and Characterization of 3D Printed Auxetic PLA-HA Composite Scaffolds for Biomedical Application.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Advances in 3D Printed Scaffolds for Periodontal Regeneration.Current oral health reports · 2026Review
- Biological Characterization of 3D-Printed, Sintered Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds Obtained by Fused Filament Fabrication: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the biological performance in vitro of two 3D-printed hydroxyapatite (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) composite scaffolds with two different infill densities (50% [HA-PLA50] and 70% [HA-PLA70]). Comparative analysis using MG-63 cell cultures evaluated the following: (1) integrity after exposure to various sterilization methods; (2) cell viability; (3) morphological characteristics; (4) cell proliferation; (5) cytotoxicity; (6) gene expression; and (7) protein synthesis. Ultraviolet radiation was the preferred sterilization method. Both scaffolds maintained adequate cell viability and proliferation over 7 days without significant differences in cytotoxicity. Notably, HA-PLA50 scaffolds demonstrated superior osteogenic potential, showing a significantly higher expression of collagen type I (COL1A1) and an increased synthesis of interleukins 6 and 8 (IL-6, IL-8) compared to HA-PLA70 scaffolds. While both scaffold types supported robust cell growth, the HA-PLA50 formulation exhibited enhanced bioactivity, suggesting a potential advantage for bone tissue engineering applications. These findings provide important insights for optimizing 3D-printed bone graft substitutes.
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.