ArticleAdvanced pharmaceutical bulletin2026
Biomimetic Scaffold of Chitosan from
Article in Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The goal of this study was to create a biocompatible bone tissue engineering scaffold from Methods: The chitosan was extracted by following steps: deproteination, demineralization, and deacetylation processes, further characterizing it through composite FTIR spectroscopy. The scaffolds were fabricated using lyophilization, followed by the evaluation of their morphology, porosity, swelling ratio, degradation rate, and compressive strength. The scaffold morphology and porosity were observed using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and the solvent displacement method. Swelling and degradation ratio were investigated in phosphate buffer saline, while compressive strength was investigated with the Universal Testing Method. For the assessment of cytocompatibility, MG-63 osteoblast-like cells were subjected to the MTT assay, and cell morphology on the scaffold was observed under SEM. Results: As shown in the FTIR results, the derived chitosan exhibited comparable functional groups to those of commercial chitosan, confirming its successful extraction. Both scaffolds exhibited interconnected pores and suitable diameters and porosity for bone scaffold tissue engineering. Chitosan from shrimp shells showed a reduction in swelling (278.55±36.49% at 24h) and a slower degradation rate (41.87±7.27% at 4 weeks) compared to commercial scaffolds, possibly due to higher residual minerals and a lower degree of deacetylation. However, compressive strength 0.991±0.01 MPa and attachment and proliferation of MG-63 cells were similar, suggesting good osteoconductivity of the biomaterials. Conclusion: Chitosan-derived shrimp shells are a sustainable biomaterial candidate for bone tissue engineering. The scaffold based on shrimp shells exhibited relatively lower degradation and moderate swelling, adequate mechanical stability, and bioactivity to support osteoblast-like cell adhesion and viability, suggesting it is adequate for bone tissue engineering applications.
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.