ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Three Different Demineralisation Protocols on the Physicochemical Properties and Biocompatibility of Decellularised Extracellular Matrix for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research Progress on the Preparation and Application of Decellularized Tendons.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background With three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting emerging as the ultimate pinnacle of personalised treatment for achieving predictable regenerative outcomes, the search for tissue-specific bioinks is on. Decellularised extracellular matrix (DECM), which provides the inherent biomimetic cues, has gained considerable attention. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of three different demineralisation protocols to obtain DECM for bone tissue engineering applications. Methodology Goat femurs were treated using three demineralisation protocols to obtain DECM. Group A was treated with demineralisation solution at 40 rpm for 14 days, Group B with freeze-thaw cycles and 0.05M hydrochloric acid (HCl) and 2.4 mM ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) at 40 rpm for 60 days, and Group C with 0.1M HCl at 40 rpm for three days. After washing, neutralization, 0.05% trypsin-EDTA treatment for 24 hours, and lyophilisation, DECM was obtained. Assessments included scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis, energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, and biocompatibility analysis. Results On comparative analysis, the protocol followed by Group C revealed good surface properties with patent and well interconnected pores with an average pore size of 218.87µm. Group C also revealed carbon and oxygen as predominant components with trace amounts of calcium, proving adequate demineralisation. Group C further revealed optimal demineralisation and decellularisation under histological analysis while maintaining biocompatibility. DECM obtained in Group C should be further processed for bioprinting applications. Conclusion The three protocols explored in this study hold potential, with Group C's protocol demonstrating the most promise for DECM-based bioink applications. Further research is needed to evaluate the suitability of the obtained DECM for preparing tissue-specific bioinks for 3D bioprinting.
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.