ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of 3D-printed Ti-MXene incorporated chitosan/HAP nano-composite soft-bone scaffold and its mechanical, anti-biofilm and cell-viability studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- MXene Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting: Design and Translation.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
- MXene-chitosan nanocomposites for structure interface and biofunctional applications in biosensing biocatalysis and regenerative biotechnology.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026Review
- Data-driven multiscale design of composite biomaterials: Integrating experiments, imaging, and computational modeling for biomedical engineering.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Advanced Biomaterials in Tissue Engineering Based on Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Nanocomposites for Multidrug-Resistant Wound Pathogens.ACS omega · 2026Article
- A Needlelike Nano-hydroxyapatite-Based Hydrogel Accelerates Critical Bone Defect Regeneration via Osteo-/Angiogenesis and Osteoimmune Regulation.Biomaterials research · 2026Article
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
The prevailing scientific literature suggests that implantable plates demand resurgery, and it will result in corrosion behaviour and the formation of biofilm on the scaffold by Staphylococcus aureus, which is capable of causing a bone surgery-related detrimental effect in two-thirds of the people suffering from osteomyelitis diseases. The development of a nanocomposite scaffold by 3D-bioprinting to improve potent mechanical features with substantial biological characteristics. By incorporating hydroxyapatite (10% w/v) into chitosan (10% w/v) at 1:1 ratio mimicking the natural structure of soft bone tissue. Furthermore, a better structural hydrogel was synthesized for 3D bio-printing through the incorporation of Ti-MXene into the Chitosan/Hydroxyapatite nanocomposite at two distinct ratios. Apart from this, 0.3 mg/mL of Ti-MXene containing 3D-printed nanocomposite scaffold revealed better structural morphology with very less biofilm formation when compared to other 3D-printed scaffolds. Furthermore, mechanical testing such as tensile revealed 23.3 MPa for 0.3 mg/mL of Ti-MXene incorporated Chitosan/HAP nanocomposite. Additionally, this scaffold exhibits a favorable contact angle (74.70°) with a low swelling ratio (27.6%) and degradation rate (1.1%). Further, an in-vitro cell viability test showed a higher cell attachment without cell death. These results find the absence of toxic effect and suggest an enhancement in cell attachment.
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.