ArticleBMC biotechnology2026
Mechanical and biological properties of trabecula and strut scaffolds in bone defect reconstruction.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifferent porous structures have different mechanical and biological properties in bone defect repair, and different types of porous structures should be applied in different scenarios. In this paper, trabecula scaffolds and strut scaffolds under different porosity conditions were designed and fabricated by 3D printing. Their mechanical and biological properties were studied, and their fluid characteristics were analyzed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
resultsThe results showed that the yield strength of the strut scaffold was higher than that of the trabecula scaffold, and the strut scaffold was subjected to uniform force, with the maximum stress being much smaller than that of the trabecula scaffold under the same force. The bone ingrowth performance of the trabecula structure scaffold was better than that of the strut scaffold. CFD analysis indicated that the trabecula scaffold had more fluid flow areas inside and provided greater mechanical stimulation to the pillars, which was conducive to bone tissue growth.
conclusionThe study demonstrated that different types of porous structures could be selected based on the characteristics of different implantation sites when designing porous scaffolds, thereby maximizing the advantages of 3D printed porous scaffolds.
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.