Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41933115›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Comparative mechanical characterisation of 13-93 bioactive glass and hybrid scaffolds for bone regeneration.

Jingwen Liu, Jishizhan Chen, Agathe Heyraud, Aikta Sharma, Meryem Lamari, Francesca Tallia, Julian R Jones, Peter D Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jingwen LiuMechanical Engineering, University College London, Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7JE, UK. jingwenliu161@gmail.com.
Jishizhan ChenMechanical Engineering, University College London, Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7JE, UK.
Agathe HeyraudDepartment of Materials, Imperial College, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Aikta SharmaMechanical Engineering, University College London, Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7JE, UK.
Meryem LamariDepartment of Materials, Imperial College, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Francesca TalliaDepartment of Materials, Imperial College, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Julian R JonesDepartment of Materials, Imperial College, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. julian.r.jones@imperial.ac.uk.
Peter D LeeMechanical Engineering, University College London, Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7JE, UK. peter.lee@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomaterial bone scaffolds offer a promising alternative to traditional treatments. Bioactive glass has shown promise however its clinical application is limited by its poor mechanical properties. Flexible hybrids are a potential solution. Herein, previous studies incorporated calcium into a silica/poly(tetrahydrofuran)/poly(ε-caprolactone) (SiO₂/PTHF/PCL-diCOOH) sol-gel hybrid to enhance its mechanical performance. We firstly compared these material scaffolds to 13–93 bioactive glass (13–93 BG) (54.6% SiO2, 22.1% CaO, 6.0% Na2O, 7.7% MgO, 7.9% K2O, and 1.7% P2O5, in mol%) scaffolds. We reveal that the hybrid material exhibits a randomised porous microstructure and superior mechanical deformability, whereas the 13–93 BG scaffolds remain stiffer and more brittle. Micro-computed tomography (µCT) quantification reveals that the glass scaffolds underwent less shrinkage after direct ink writing (DIW) than the hybrid scaffolds, enabling easier reproduction of the design files. We demonstrate that the hybrid scaffold can withstand strains of up to 7%, mimicking the elastic behaviour of bone, while the 13–93 BG scaffold fails at 2% strain. Finite element (FE) analysis revealed a more decentralized stress distribution and higher local strain within the hybrid scaffold, whereas the 13–93 BG scaffold showed high stress concentration at strut junctions in line with a higher risk of brittle failure. The characterisation methods applied in this study can be extended to other biomaterials, providing valuable insights for biomaterials research and guiding scaffold design for bone regeneration.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsBone RegenerationGlassTissue ScaffoldsMaterials TestingPolyestersPorosityTissue EngineeringX-Ray Microtomography13-93 bioactive glassBiocompatible MaterialsPolyestersBioactive glassBiomaterialBone regenerationMechanical characterisationµCT

Identifiers

PMID41933115
PMCPMC13194938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.