ArticleRegenerative therapy2025
Printable biomaterials for 3D brain regenerative scaffolds: An in vivo biocompatibility assessment.
Article in Regenerative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brain regeneration after injury is a challenge being tackled by numerous therapeutic strategies in pre-clinical development. There is growing interest in scaffolds implanted in brain lesions. Developments in 3D printing offer the possibility of designing complex structures of varying compositions adapted to tissue anatomy. Methods: This feasibility study assessed the cerebral biocompatibility of four bioeliminable Digital Light Processing (DLP) printed materials in the rat model: gelatin methacrylate (GelMA), poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate (PEGDA) mixed with GelMA (PEGDA-GelMA), poly(trimethylene carbonate) trimethacrylate (PTMC-tMA) and an ABA triblock copolymer of polypropylene fumarate-b-poly γ-methyl ε-caprolactone-b-polypropylene fumarate (P(PF-MCL-PF)). Their tolerance was compared to that of polydioxanone Ethicon (PDSII), a neurosurgery suture component commonly used in clinical practice. A one-month MRI and behavioral follow-up aided in safety assessment. Results: High-resolution T2 MRI imaging effectively captured the scaffold structures and demonstrated its non-invasive utility in monitoring degradability. PDSII served as a control of the acceptable inflammatory response to implantable foreign bodies. GelMA, PEGDA-GelMA and PTMC-tMA did not affect the permissive glial barrier, promoted cell migration, and neovascularization without additional perilesional microglial inflammation (median mean of 6.5 %, compared to 8.2 % for the PDSII control). However, the GelMA scaffold core was not colonized and allowed a limited neuronal progenitors recruitment. The rigidity of PTMC-tMA facilitated insertion, but posed histological issues. The brain hardly reacted to the P(PF-MCL-PF). Conclusion: All these materials can serve as a basis for brain regeneration. PEGDA-GelMA emerged as a promising candidate for intracerebral implantation, combining biophysical and bioprinting advantages while maintaining an acceptable level of inflammation compared with clinically used suture, paving the way for innovative therapies.
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.