ArticlePloS one2019
The physicochemical and biomechanical profile of forsterite and its osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stromal cells.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- PoreVision: A Program for Enhancing Efficiency and Accuracy in SEM Pore Analyses of Gels and Other Porous Materials.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Metal Ion-Doped Hydroxyapatite-Based Materials for Bone Defect Restoration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Synthetic materials in craniofacial regenerative medicine: A comprehensive overview.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Calcium-Silicate-Incorporated Gellan-Chitosan Induced Osteogenic Differentiation in Mesenchymal Stromal Cells.Polymers · 2021Article
- Article
- Mesoporous Hydroxyapatite/Chitosan Loaded With Recombinant-Human Amelogenin Could Enhance Antibacterial Effect and Promote Periodontal Regeneration.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been demonstrated that nanocrystalline forsterite powder synthesised using urea as a fuel in sol-gel combustion method had produced a pure forsterite (FU) and possessed superior bioactive characteristics such as bone apatite formation and antibacterial properties. In the present study, 3D-scaffold was fabricated using nanocrystalline forsterite powder in polymer sponge method. The FU scaffold was used in investigating the physicochemical, biomechanics, cell attachment, in vitro biocompatibility and osteogenic differentiation properties. For physicochemical characterisation, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Energy dispersive X-ray (EDX), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Raman spectroscopy, X-ray photoemission spectrometer (XPS) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) were used. FTIR, EDX, XRD peaks and Raman spectroscopy demonstrated correlating to FU. The XPS confirmed the surface chemistry associating to FU. The BET revealed FU scaffold surface area of 12.67 m2/g and total pore size of 0.03 cm3/g. Compressive strength of the FU scaffold was found to be 27.18 ± 13.4 MPa. The human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells (hBMSCs) characterisation prior to perform seeding on FU scaffold verified the stromal cell phenotypic and lineage commitments. SEM, confocal images and presto blue viability assay suggested good cell attachment and proliferation of hBMSCs on FU scaffold and comparable to a commercial bone substitutes (cBS). Osteogenic proteins and gene expression from day 7 onward indicated FU scaffold had a significant osteogenic potential (p<0.05), when compared with day 1 as well as between FU and cBS. These findings suggest that FU scaffold has a greater potential for use in orthopaedic and/or orthodontic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.