ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative mechanical characterisation of 13-93 bioactive glass and hybrid scaffolds for bone regeneration.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.